Italy should have a submarine squadron in Massawa.

[Tanaka]

Regia Marina
Modern map of Eritrea showing Massawa (now Mitsiwa'e)

"From 1935 to 1940 the Regia Marina (Italian Royal Navy) laid plans for an ocean-going "escape fleet" (Flotta d'evasione) equipped for service in the tropics. The plans varied from three battleships, an aircraft carrier, twelve cruisers, 36 destroyers and 30 submarines to a more realistic two cruisers, eight destroyers and twelve submarines.[15] Even the lower establishment proved too expensive and in 1940 the Red Sea Flotilla had seven ageing fleet destroyers, the 5th Destroyer Division with the Leone-class destroyers Pantera, Leone and Tigre and the 3rd Destroyer Division with the Sauro-class destroyers Cesare Battisti, Francesco Nullo, Nazario Sauro and Daniele Manin. There were two old local defence destroyers (torpedo boats) Orsini and Acerbi, a squadron of five first world war Motoscafo Armato Silurante (MAS, motor torpedo boats).[16]

The Flotilla had eight modern submarines (Archimede, Galileo Ferraris, Galileo Galilei, Evangelista Torricelli, Luigi Galvani, Guglielmotti, Macallé and Perla). The flotilla was based at Massawa in Eritrea on the Red Sea. The port linked Axis-occupied Europe and the naval facilities in the Italian concession zone at Tientsin in China.[16] There were limited port facilities at Assab, in Eritrea and at Mogadishu in Italian Somaliland. When the Mediterranean route was closed to Allied merchant ships in April 1940, the Italian naval bases in East Africa were well placed for attacks on convoys en route to Suez up the east coast of Africa and through the Red Sea. The finite resources in Italian East Africa were intended to last for a war of about six months' duration, the submarines denying the Red Sea route to the British.[17]"

[BillRunacre]

The Italians do receive some Destroyers there when they enter the war, which can be used for raiding. There is a danger that if another unit is added then their potential capacity to wreak mischief will be above what they historically had the potential to do?

[amandkm]

Perhaps, but given the Italian's weak economy, maybe if you downgrade the Destroyer to a half strength MTB and add a 3 strength Sub (like the Monsunboat counter) that would add some depth to the Italian threat, in that the Allies have two raiders to hunt down, but each one is pretty weak.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: amandkm

Perhaps, but given the Italian's weak economy, maybe if you downgrade the Destroyer to a half strength MTB and add a 3 strength Sub (like the Monsunboat counter) that would add some depth to the Italian threat, in that the Allies have two raiders to hunt down, but each one is pretty weak.

Yeah the destroyer squadron already starts out very weak at 5 and in my mod I set the new red sea submarine squadron at 5 as well.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

The Italians do receive some Destroyers there when they enter the war, which can be used for raiding. There is a danger that if another unit is added then their potential capacity to wreak mischief will be above what they historically had the potential to do?

Fair but also to be fair historically the Italians booted the British from British Somaliland but in this game that is pretty impossible to do without shipping in more forces...

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

The Italians do receive some Destroyers there when they enter the war, which can be used for raiding. There is a danger that if another unit is added then their potential capacity to wreak mischief will be above what they historically had the potential to do?

The destroyer dies literally immediately after you see a pop-up note that you received it. I didn't even get to use it.

[warspite1]

Given what the Italian submarine force in East Africa achieved, there is little, if any, justification for its addition. The Italians are already far to powerful, compared to historically, in that region.

My 2 cents

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Given what the Italian submarine force in East Africa achieved, there is little, if any, justification for its addition.

I am not sure if I understand that logic. So the Kwantung Army shouldn't be represented in the game either, since they just sat on their behinds most of the war? What about the French surface navy? And so on.

The point of this exercise is to see whether we players can utilize the combat potential badly managed by actual historical figures better today.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Given what the Italian submarine force in East Africa achieved, there is little, if any, justification for its addition.

I am not sure if I understand that logic. So the Kwantung Army shouldn't be represented in the game either, since they just sat on their behinds most of the war? What about the French surface navy? And so on.

The point of this exercise is to see whether we players can utilize the combat potential badly managed by actual historical figures better today.

warspite1

No, that is not what I am saying at all. With strategic games like this there is always cases to be made for including this or excluding that etc.

To suggest the Kwantung Army shouldn't be represented is complete nonsense. From the games I've played, the Kwantung Army gets treated like its historical counterpart i.e. there needs to be one, but as the Japanese commitments elsewhere increase, so the Kwantung Army gets weaker and weaker.

I don't know what you are talking about with the French Navy as you haven't made a point - you just asked a question with no context.

As far as the Italians in East Africa are concerned, my thinking is simple. The Italian submarine arm was very poor. The performance of the submarines in East Africa was doubly so. The Italians in East Africa, based on real life, are probably a little too strong. Given the need to balance a game, and given the history, why increase the Italian naval threat?

I can give you an obvious counter to your argument if you like - you said:

"The point of this exercise is to see whether we players can utilize the combat potential badly managed by actual historical figures better today".

So why not extend that to the French Army? They had the manpower, the tanks - so why not allow players to utilise their combat potential? Well there is a reason - the same reason with every such game. If the French are allowed to perform outside their potential then there is no game. World War II happened in the way it did - and didn't end by 1941 - because of the incredible events of May/June 1940. Any ETO/WWII strategic game needs to ensure this can be replicated (or thereabouts) or there simply is no game.

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

To suggest the Kwantung Army shouldn't be represented is complete nonsense. From the games I've played, the Kwantung Army gets treated like its historical counterpart i.e. there needs to be one, but as the Japanese commitments elsewhere increase, so the Kwantung Army gets weaker and weaker.

I don't know what you are talking about with the French Navy as you haven't made a point - you just asked a question with no context.

As far as the Italians in East Africa are concerned, my thinking is simple. The Italian submarine arm was very poor. The performance of the submarines in East Africa was doubly so. The Italians in East Africa, based on real life, are probably a little too strong. Given the need to balance a game, and given the history, why increase the Italian naval threat?

I can give you an obvious counter to your argument if you like - you said:

"The point of this exercise is to see whether we players can utilize the combat potential badly managed by actual historical figures better today".

So why not extend that to the French Army? They had the manpower, the tanks - so why not allow players to utilise their combat potential? Well there is a reason - the same reason with every such game. If the French are allowed to perform outside their potential then there is no game. World War II happened in the way it did - and didn't end by 1941 - because of the incredible events of May/June 1940. Any ETO/WWII strategic game needs to ensure this can be replicated (or thereabouts) or there simply is no game.

The point about the Kwantung Army and the French fleet was rhetorical - or sardonic.

I think we have a misunderstanding here. I take your claim to have been essentially: "The Italian subs shouldn't be included, because they didn't perform well." That's a result-oriented claim for exclusion, and that is for me an invalid argument - because using such a chain of logic may be used to exclude any losing or badly performing military formation, regardless of capability. In contrast, your amended argument sounds closer to: "The Italian subs shouldn't be included, because they were poor, insignificant units" - whether due to equipment deficit or manpower deficit or training deficit or whatever. That's a capability or power-oriented claim for exclusion, and I don't have a problem with that. But I consider these two claims as distinct - indeed, chasms apart - and it was not clear to me that you weren't making a results-oriented claim.

As for your question about translating actual French capabilities in 1939 into the game: I actually made a mild argument for that position in a different thread. Yes, creating a facsimile of the French military in 1939 would likely mean the European theater would be over in 1940 or even 1939, and that would destroy game-balance. But I do wonder if the French cannot be boosted a bit to achieve a compromise between game-play balance and fidelity to history.

[MrTomnus]

I think Naval forces in general are a bit abstract, the Soviet Navy for example was much larger than what is represented in game.

If we had 100% accurate of naval dispositions i think we'd need a bigger map.

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: MrTomnus

I think Naval forces in general are a bit abstract, the Soviet Navy for example was much larger than what is represented in game.

If we had 100% accurate of naval dispositions i think we'd need a bigger map.

That is certainly true - but that is also true of non-naval units, too!

Speaking of accurate representation, I think the Royal Navy seems to be under-represented as well? In fact, perhaps relatively speaking both Italian and British navies are then fairly represented?

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

ORIGINAL: MrTomnus

I think Naval forces in general are a bit abstract, the Soviet Navy for example was much larger than what is represented in game.

If we had 100% accurate of naval dispositions i think we'd need a bigger map.

That is certainly true - but that is also true of non-naval units, too!

Speaking of accurate representation, I think the Royal Navy seems to be under-represented as well? In fact, perhaps relatively speaking both Italian and British navies are then fairly represented?

Check out WIE vs WAW and you will see there are more naval units. And I guess as you say this is because of the bigger map. In my WIE to WAW conversion mod I brought all these starting units back to WAW and they seem to fit in fine though...

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4853659

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

I think we have a misunderstanding here. I take your claim to have been essentially: "The Italian subs shouldn't be included, because they didn't perform well."

warspite1

Yes we do have a misunderstanding. You've ignored the second element in my initial post. But even if I wasn't clear in that post then I've clarified in my follow-up, surely? So why the continued mis-understanding?

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

But I do wonder if the French cannot be boosted a bit to achieve a compromise between game-play balance and fidelity to history.

warspite1

Well that probably depends on who is playing who. Get the best Axis attacker vs the best Allied defender and get them to play ten games. See what is achievable with the French and Germans then.

Its a balancing act. If the French get destroyed routinely in early 1940 then the game has issues (unless there are allowances made elsewhere to counter). If the French routinely hold on until the autumn then the game has issues (unless there are allowances made elsewhere to counter).

I'd like to know what the best players think of game balance.

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But even if I wasn't clear in that post then I've clarified in my follow-up, surely? So why the continued mis-understanding?

There is no continued misunderstanding. I was just posting the reasons for my initial misinterpretation. Perhaps I should have written "we had" a misunderstanding instead of "we have," but English is my second language, and it is not always possible to be extra precise and careful when posting in a foreign language. (Incidentally, this is why I have to edit my posts so much; so many grammatical and spelling errors!)

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I'd like to know what the best players think of game balance.

Yes, I'd like to know what the better players think of the game's balance between Allies and Axis - especially because I like to my and thus personalize my games a lot, but I don't want to do it too heavily until I know the game balance better.

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


Check out WIE vs WAW and you will see there are more naval units. And I guess as you say this is because of the bigger map. In my WIE to WAW conversion mod I brought all these starting units back to WAW and they seem to fit in fine though...

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4853659

Onto the comparison just as I type!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But even if I wasn't clear in that post then I've clarified in my follow-up, surely? So why the continued mis-understanding?

....but English is my second language, and it is not always possible to be extra precise and careful when posting in a foreign language. (Incidentally, this is why I have to edit my posts so much; so many grammatical and spelling errors!)

warspite1

Well I've no idea what your first language is, but your English is pretty damn good [&o][:)]

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: warspite1




Well I've no idea what your first language is, but your English is pretty damn good [&o][:)]

Thanks! I was born in Korea, learned Korean and Chinese (only written), and then immigrated to the U.S. in my teens. My English prose is tolerable if I have the time to crunch everything through spelling/grammar checkers, but it is a mess if it comes as a stream-of-consciousness - just as in forum posts!

[Alcibiades73]

Tanaka,

Your mod is absolutely invaluable as a reference for my own mod. Once again, thanks!

I am writing in all your Italian navy changes (except that I am on the fence about the extra subs)- and likely the British navy changes, too. You also mentioned somewhere a Spanish light tank division, and I see them. Any other changes off the top of your head?

For now my own modding will be light. Other than incorporating your changes, I am switching some superheavy battleships (Yamato and Montana class and the German H class) to dreadnoughts; and I think I am going to tinker with naval build times so losses cannot be replaced quite as easily (and the default game build times are a bit too fast anyways relative to historical reality).

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

Tanaka,

Your mod is absolutely invaluable as a reference for my own mod. Once again, thanks!

I am writing in all your Italian navy changes (except that I am on the fence about the extra subs)- and likely the British navy changes, too. You also mentioned somewhere a Spanish light tank division, and I see them. Any other changes off the top of your head?

For now my own modding will be light. Other than incorporating your changes, I am switching some superheavy battleships (Yamato and Montana class and the German H class) to dreadnoughts; and I think I am going to tinker with naval build times so losses cannot be replaced quite as easily (and the default game build times are a bit too fast anyways relative to historical reality).

Sounds like a great mod. You should definitely get WIE to compare as the bigger map is a lot of fun. I think there is a discount package. Yeah it was mostly UK and Italian ships and the Italian 11th army in Albania that were missing. The light tank in Spain. Probably a few others but I would have to go back and compare maps again...If you just follow my mod template it is all there.