Naval Repricing

I agree this should be addressed. On the custom map we use all islands are worth at least 1 IPC, which helps somewhat, but like you said, it’s only financial.

I like the supply concept you have. Instead of tampering with all the unit stats, perhaps you could say that no surface attacks can be launched unless a friendly land zone is located in an adjacent sea zone. (double that distance with a naval base)

@Tamer:

I like your original idea, but what about carriers?  They were the most important ships to keep afloat during the war, and a great deal of repair was done for them as well.

I do not recall any instance off-hand during the war in which a carrier was re-floated after having been sunk and then returned to active service.

The Amagi and Graf Zeppelin were both sunk and re-floated, but neither saw active service during the war and Graf Zeppelin wasn’t even complete.

The re-floating idea is kind of cool, but it may need to be reduced somehow to make it a more rare occurrence. As Marc said, it was a long and expensive process and not every ship that was sunk qualified for such a salvage operation. Unfortunately with A&A, we do not have the granularity in gameplay to determine how badly ships are damaged.

I suppose that you could modify the rule so that after combat you need to roll for each ship lost to determine IF it can be salvaged. Say you need a 2 or less to float a given ship. If you roll that, then you can decide to pay half to re-float.

It complicates things, but definitely makes it so you can’t just regenerate 2 battleships and 3 cruisers if you want.

I will offer another limitation that sounds logical to me, but you can consider:

Ships may only be raised on the following turn and to do so, there may not be any hostile warships in the sea zone where the ships were sunk. This implies that any ships not raised the following turn will be lost forever, as you said, and that the territory with your naval base cannot be taken by the enemy in that time.

Example:    Gibraltar is amphib assaulted by Italy. All UK warships are destroyed. Italy has no warships present in sea zone, only transports. Italy takes Gibraltar. US player lands and liberates Gibraltar on their turn, returning it to UK control. The UK player cannot then re-float ships lost in previous turn combat with Italy because they did not retain full control of Gibraltar.

Somewhat complicated perhaps, but I think some of these limitations need to be placed, otherwise I see this as being a huge advantage for the Axis. Germany and Italy in particular, because they tend to hole up their navies in home water areas and can potentially get double the naval power at half the cost. It will further incentivize them to stock up and stay in port knowing they can effectively respawn capital ships on the cheap. An element of chance and tactical consideration should be added so that it isn’t just automatic.

I’m biased since I live in wcanada.Since about 1875 there has been a naval base in wcanada.Its not huge but I’d bet in ww2,it was equivalent to bases in NewZealand,Africa,Australia.I’m wondering what effect it would have on game if uk started with a base in wcanada?
  Esquimalt naval base its called.

@Der:

Planes WERE historically superior to ships as far as bang for the buck - that’s why carriers replaced battleships.

That is correct, but the 1940 fighters did not got the range to sink the Royal Navy in the real war. Taking off from Normandy they barely crossed the English Channel and got 10 minutes of operational time before they run out of gas. In this A&A game a Fighter unit can easily cross the Atlantic and sink everything afloat. And that is not historical correct, and I doubt it make the game better

Good thinking - I’ve often thought that coastal zones and islands need to be tougher to take.

No, it’s less complex than you think.
All you have to do is to move the cargo on the convoy route and protect it if there’s a sub near by. The rules of transport and cargo are almost the same.

In most AA game, UK and Japan are too stronger.
During WWII, Germany tried to cut the UK supply.
US make the same thing at the beginning of 1943 against Japan.
If UK or Japan player build a thousand of tank,plane and other materiels each turn even if they lost their fleet and the control of the ocean. That doesn’t make any sense!

For the warship cost.
Each country has their own cost.
ex: Uboat = 5, USA,UK sub = 8, Italy 9 etc…

thats crappy
its no enough a month yet

I fixed it
trying speedyshare instead of rapidshare now

@Imperious:

subs only fire preemtive when a ship other than a DD or CA ( and sub) is not present as they have no ASW capability. this has not changed. In this case if you have a CA or DD then they fire back.

Thats not my interpertation of the OOB.
I think SS always fire in opening-fire. Presence of DD only allows your casualties to stay and be removed later rather than in opening-fire.

Secondly, I was talking about realism not how it works in the proposed rule. Surely the defending destroyers have more to worry about than the attacking destroyers and can’t fight as well.
+++ what would be better?

My quick solution, pulled out of thin air, is a -1 modifer for DDs wishing to perform ASW rolls. Screening, a relative passive job, however does not cause -1 modifier.
FTR and BMB could also say get -1 modifier for wishing to perform ASW rolls.

Its already generous when you think about it.

If not then when 1 DD + 1 SS attacks 1 DD….the defending DD would basically get to shoot twice while the attacking ships shoot once each. A bit strange.

1 DD provides early warning against submarine attack for whole fleet so casualties are not removed in opening-fire.
Is that realistic?

Air supremacy
When only one side has air units, those air units fire preemptively.
          Land Combat                   Naval Combat
FTR    opening-fire, selective?    opening-fire, selective?
BMR   opening-fire?                   opening-fire?

What about hit allocations?