Question for the players

[Michael T]

I am even thinking to start ship since '39 the TAC the Brits have in Egypt back to UK

Yep, I did that. Helps flatten the Ruhr.

On the whole I think there is more wrong with the Allied side (in so much as undue advantages). But here we are trying to stem the tide (some of us) of an Axis nerf. Oh well, nothing new.

[AlbertN]

I think there is one thing UK needs - more divisions in UK, that start as garrisons.
Sea-Lion seems relatively easy considering once France is gone, the Luftwaffe can nail the british ships coming around.
So I'd rather remove some of the RAF and add a few divisions in Garrison mode - maybe also 'low experience' one so they're not that suitable to be sent in France after a forming up but can do well enough to keep a port from invasion.

[Michael T]

You must be playing a different game to me. I have UK and Canadian ground units all over the place. Probably twice as many as historical, all by May 1940. Next turn I get I will do a screen grab of Force size for UK/France V Germany.

[Flaviusx]

Modest proposal: put Bomber Command on the deployment queue, set for, say, June of 40.

I don't think it should be removed entirely, the UK made a substantial prewar investment in strategic bombing and putting together 400 production to build a new one is no joke.

But this way you represent the initial disorganization and policy of dropping leaflets instead of bombs under Chamberlain. When Churchill comes in, bombs away.

You'd still have tactical bombers, but those things really aren't great at strategic bombing and can be managed imo.

[Flaviusx]

One more thing, maybe the tactical air unit in Egypt should start at half strength, like the rest of the UK garrison there.

[Essro]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I question the Brits even having a strat air unit at start. I think it should be removed.

I disagree.

The planes certainly existed. British Bomber Command was a fully functional entity.

Just because the Brits didn't use them until after what happened at Rotterdam doesn't mean they could not have made that same decision earlier after what happened to Warsaw.

Or conversely, we curb the unit until May/June 40 as a method to reign in hindsight.

[AlbertN]

I see a Strategical Unit here as four engine bombers - which I do not believe UK had in adequate numbers in '39. They had a mix of Blenheims, Whitleys, Hampden, and the like, that I'd class as medium bomber at least.
To add them to the production queue or bind them to the fall of France, is something that would do good to the game.

[Michael T]

I can't disagree with that. However it's done, it needs to be toned down.

On another level. Bomber Command very quickly abandoned daylight bombing and focused on night missions and area bombing rather than precision daylight raids. They gained no real traction on German production capacity until 1943.

Harris wanted to demoralize the German population. Destroy the will to continue the war. Via killing civilians and destroying their homes. Any collateral damage to industry was good but not necessarily the primary aim. Indirect industrial reduction through damage to civilian lives and morale was the aim.

So the way it stands ATM with the RAF obliterating the Ruhr in 1939/40 is nuts.

[Michael T]

As promised some pics. First this one. The western front 21 June 1940. I just wiped out a Pz Corp. Not only do I have all these guys in France I have a boatload in the UK and Egypt. Maybe another 20 odd Commonwealth divisions. I honestly have doubts he will get France in 1940. This PBEM.

[Michael T]

Now this. Force Strength. Note the Ground. UK/FR v Germany. Ground parity. No lack of units.

[Essro]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

As promised some pics. First this one. The western front 21 June 1940. I just wiped out a Pz Corp. Not only do I have all these guys in France I have a boatload in the UK and Egypt. Maybe another 20 odd Commonwealth divisions. I honestly have doubts he will get France in 1940. This PBEM.

this looks painful. Keep us posted.

[Essro]

ORIGINAL: Cohen_slith

I see a Strategical Unit here as four engine bombers - which I do not believe UK had in adequate numbers in '39. They had a mix of Blenheims, Whitleys, Hampden, and the like, that I'd class as medium bomber at least.
To add them to the production queue or bind them to the fall of France, is something that would do good to the game.

I think you are correct. I made my comment thinking the Stirlings were operational but as soon as I posted it, I started to second guess.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Cohen_slith
I see a Strategical Unit here as four engine bombers - which I do not believe UK had in adequate numbers in '39.

Not true, look at bomber 3, they had quite a few Wellingtons in Sep 39. Probably enough to justify 2 units in game.

http://www.niehorster.org/017_britain/39_raf/_raf.html

I count 19 squadrons in bomber 3 of Wellingtons. That's 6-18 planes per squadron and production would be adding more all the time as it was a modern new aircraft currently in the production cycle.

Edit: Oops, one of the squadrons was in New Zealand, so only 18 not 19 were in England sorry. That's still quite a powerful force of 4 engine planes at the very start of war.

Jim

[Essro]

Jim's right.

And I forgot about the Wellingtons as well (I need to stop posting late at night--I forget things I know lol). Although a 2 engine bomber it certainly counts as a strat bomber.

But in any case, we have deviated significantly from the original question of rail capacity.

For the record, I think the at start German rail is fine--but would be curious to the methodology used to attain its current value. But I would not be opposed to reducing it by X amount until some event or specific date--Polish collapse or a date to be determined.


side note: isn't the Stirling a great aircraft? It looks an airplane a 5 year old might draw. It's always made me smile.

[AlbertN]

Point is that right now the game seems quite Pro-Allies (Unless you play the '40 Scenario - different tale there for France, but the Allies did not had X turns to produce stuff in the while).

So if the Sitzkrieg is forcefully enacted as it seems the way it will go - less rail moves, harder combat in bad weather, etc, these screenies will be the May'40 truth for everyone.
Who will want to play Axis at that stage, and play WW1 slog?

[Michael T]

Who needs Lancaster's when our Wellingtons and Stirling's can do this?

I guess we should nerf the Germans, that will help.

[Michael T]

More.

[Michael T]

Not quite there yet.

[AlbertN]

I think there the main problems are the fact that fighters seems impotent vs bombers. Losses are pratically minimal on the bomber's end.
And that there is no way to control what fighters intercepts.

One can easily launch a few decoy missions (I can use a fighter to bomb some closeby unit, that prolly will also be escorted by another fighter! And get intercepted! Spending reactions from the defender before to do meaningful bombings).
Right now it is all relative since ... as said air losses seem minimal, escorted or not.

[Flaviusx]

I don't know what to say, because I have found fighters to be very effective against bombers, especially early on. I also am wondering how the Axis is managing their air war in this game, tbh.

For all of that, I am open to putting Bomber Command in the deployment queue as mentioned above.