Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Very good suggestions Andrew !
BBs and CVs took years to build, the only nation that was able to significantly build some during the course of the war are the USA, but as the game is about Europe... events will do it quite well! And it'll be much better than "expresso ships" built in a couple days !
The other ideas are just great.

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

There have been some interesting suggestions regarding the ability of aircraft to find and attack naval units in non-narrow sea sea zones. The problem with some of the suggested solutions (making more and smaller sea zones, adding coastal and open water zones to exsisting sea zones, etc.) is primarily one of scale -- and this is also the problem that we're seeing in ships surviving air attacks. You have to remember that we're talking about 1 week turns. In seven days, a modern (post WWI) warship could easily sail from New York to London. Another problem that we have from allowing ships to move two sea zones/turn is that it allows ships to pass through sea zones without incurring interdictory attacks (by either sea or land forces.)

However, I think that we could do the following: the problem seems to be restricted to the Atlantic sea zones. The Med zones, the Baltic and the North Sea zones are all small enough and restricted enough to simulate the death traps that they were for warships attacked by unopposed enemy aircraft. We should add the following sea zones -- Arctic Sea zone, limiting the Norwegian Sea zone to the Norwegian coast out to 200 miles offshore; Western Approaches (from the north of Scotland to the Channel and extending aprox 200 miles to the west of the shoreline;) Bay of Biscay (from the Channel to Cape Finisterre;) Straits of Gibraltar (from Cape Finisterre to the Canaries.) All of these sea zones would be subject to air attack. The major Atlantic sea zones would then be out of range of air attacks.

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever

                3) A port is a port is a port. That said Air Recon of ports to locate ships to bomb would be nice.

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever

                3) A port is a port is a port. That said Air Recon of ports to locate ships to bomb would be nice.

You might try telling that to the Allies in Normandy. The ENTIRE history of Overlord was predicated on finding a port that was
a)large enough, and
b)intact enough to provide supply to the forces they were pouring into France. The absolute strategic reasoning behind giving priority to Montgomery's drive into Belgium was because the only available port in North-West Europe that was large enough was Antwerp.
The Allikes were being strangled by having to depend on the French channel ports and because the west coast ports were either still in German hands or had been leveled to the beach by German demolition.



3) We desperately need to do something about ship repair. Ships should be limited to which ports can repair them, and it should take time! Id suggest that no ship can repair in a port smaller than 5, say, ahd a capital ship should require a 9 or 10. It should take longer to repair a ship in a smaller port. And it should take months to repair major damage. The image of Tripitz, stuck like a grounded whale in Trondhiem Fjord comes to mind.

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever

So sorry, my comment was a bit sarcastic but I was only considering your above suggestion.

It seems to me in a game of this scale only major ports are represented and if you control them you should be able to utilize them.

As for supply capacity of a port, could it not be dealt with in the convoy results if it isn't already.

Once again - "I want to play a good realistic game but I don't want to have to button their tunics."

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

"amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics." Gen. Omar Bradley

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever

So sorry, my comment was a bit sarcastic but I was only considering your above suggestion.

It seems to me in a game of this scale only major ports are represented and if you control them you should be able to utilize them.

As for supply capacity of a port, could it not be dealt with in the convoy results if it isn't already.

Once again - "I want to play a good realistic game but I don't want to have to button their tunics."

Personally, I LOVE sarcasm -- as has been said elsewhere around here, this is Liberty Hall, please don't feel it necessary to apologize for zealous defense of a position! I've been known for zeal myself, occasionally.[8|]

You must have missed the posts (above) where it was conceded that limiting ports to just 4 sizes would be superior to my original suggestion of 10.

While the game scale does tend to confuse people, in this case we have several ports on the map that are essentially just an old fishing pier -- and if it came right down to it, some of them I'd hesitate to go fishing from!

And by putting port sizes on the map, you could damage the port via bombardment or ground attack or concievably by demolition.

I don't want to get overly detailed, either, but I find myself repeating about once every two weeks Omar Bradley's comment that "amatuers study strategy, professionals study logistics."

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever

                3) A port is a port is a port. That said Air Recon of ports to locate ships to bomb would be nice.

You might try telling that to the Allies in Normandy. The ENTIRE history of Overlord was predicated on finding a port that was
a)large enough, and
b)intact enough to provide supply to the forces they were pouring into France. The absolute strategic reasoning behind giving priority to Montgomery's drive into Belgium was because the only available port in North-West Europe that was large enough was Antwerp.
The Allikes were being strangled by having to depend on the French channel ports and because the west coast ports were either still in German hands or had been leveled to the beach by German demolition.