Mediterranean Naval Units

@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.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@oztea:

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.

@calvinhobbesliker:

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.

@calvinhobbesliker:

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.)

@calvinhobbesliker:

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

No, the tank may not be full, but it would be fine by me to assume it is. Maybe it is slightly more acceptable in my mind to use the +1 movement for ships… but for planes, it just doesn’t make enough sense to me.

I said there “obviously must be a reason”, not that the reason is obvious. I for one can only theorize on my own about such a reason why ships didn’t attack other ships in major anchorages. If anyone does know the reason, I too would like to be confirmed or proven wrong in my conjecture.

@calvinhobbesliker:

the rationelle for planes might be that an airbase equals a flat runway, which leads to less time being wasted taking off, and facilities that repair the plane from invisible damage

Okay, good point. I can accept the “invisible damage” assumption. I actually considered the airbase acting as a repair facility also, trying to justify it to myself, but sort of stopped when I got to thinking about planes being able to take 2 hits… which should never, ever happen. But, as we have been discussing the “invisible” models of the game (see my new posting on fortifications under Maginot Line thread)… I can buy this.

I still don’t know if it is entirely justified though. You know what… No, I can, and will be forever, fine with the Airbases aspect as long as long range aircraft are not present as a tech. (Not that my being fine matters to any of you.) But I think bombers moving 9 spaces is bogus!

@calvinhobbesliker:

I think LRA was modified to +1 instead of +2

Oh. I have some thinking to do then. Well, it is what it is. Time will tell if it works or not.