Matrix Games Forums

Thanks! That’s what I wanted to try & recall - where did BBs fire at enemy ships in the Med?

It’s entirely true that hindsight changes perspective, but it is also impossible to avoid in wargaming. The, let’s say ‘efficacy’ of aircraft in naval war went up in WWII and the naval commanders adapted to that in real time. So often I recall histories mentioning not using capital ships somewhere “due to the risk of air attack” - on both sides, in multiple theaters.

I think the historical Italians built around 10,000 aircraft while maintaining a slow but steady CL/CA/BB investment program of construction and upgrades (and replaced a whole lot of lost INF). If you let a person re-cast those decisions 70 years later many will conclude that building 20,000 aircraft and not so much warship steel plate will be more effective. I think that is a prime reason the air force pools were reduced in Collectors Edition - to reduce the players’ latitude to perfectly apply that hindsight.

WiF does quite warp perspective on CV air vs. land-based air when it lets land-based air operate anywhere in a sea zone regardless of base locations (disadvantage to CV), and this warping gets way worse when you can put 2 plane counters on a CV that only held 50-75 aircraft to start with (advantage CV). Playability trade-offs erode accurate views of the history.

So the WiF CW can just rebase planes from Gibraltar to Malta via the sea box, cover supply runs to Malta exclusively with air based in Gibraltar, and never risk exposing their CVs to the Frogmen at all (while defending the supply ships from subs with Cruiser counters). Meanwhile in history, the near loss of the Illustrious was the most Pacific-like action in the Med that I can recall, quite a dramatic running battle that I have always thought would make a good operational naval game or scenario in a far more finely detailed naval game than WiF is.

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Thanks! That’s what I wanted to try & recall - where did BBs fire at enemy ships in the Med?

warspite1

There were only a few - but the point is there could have been more had the Italians been bolder in their approach. But the fact there was so little BB on BB action does not diminish their importance.

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Meanwhile in history, the near loss of the Illustrious was the most Pacific-like action in the Med that I can recall, quite a dramatic running battle that I have always thought would make a good operational naval game or scenario in a far more finely detailed naval game than WiF is.

warspite1

What do you mean by 'Pacific-like action'? There was plenty of land based air vs surface vessels (incl. carriers) throughout the Mediterranean War if that is what you refer to.

I meant one where the action continued across a time frame longer than just an hour or 2 of enemy contact. And was all in a sustained operation well into the Axis air umbrella, determinedly so. Crete had some similar ops perhaps, but with shorter risk periods, and I think without CV cover for various reasons.

The theaters can’t really be compared, yes, but in WiF we use the same systems to fight in each, and the key unit on the Allied side becomes FTR3s.

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I meant one where the action continued across a time frame longer than just an hour or 2 of enemy contact. And was all in a sustained operation well into the Axis air umbrella, determinedly so. Crete had some similar ops perhaps, but with shorter risk periods, and I think without CV cover for various reasons.

warspite1

It sounds like you are thinking of things like Watchtower or the island hoping operations - which of course is completely different and, as you say, the two theatres in many respects can't be compared.

But I would certainly disagree about the lack of sustained operations and an 'hour or two of enemy contact'. Although not all convoy operations were the same and much depended on the where the Luftwaffe was. It took circa four/five days to get from Alex or Gib to Malta (depending on the nature of the convoy of course). The Axis could attack via sub all along the journey, and by air not just from Sicily, but from Sardinia in the west and from Crete and North Africa. Then there was the Regia Marina both pre entering the straits (larger surface vessels and subs) and after entering (smaller ships, subs and boats). Yes Crete would definitely be included as being sustained operations.

ORIGINAL: brian brian

The theaters can’t really be compared, yes, but in WiF we use the same systems to fight in each, and the key unit on the Allied side becomes FTR3s.

warspite1

No - the key unit is the bloody dice [;)]

As for the game, I think that regardless of the operation, whether supply of forces, transport of troops, amphibious invasions, sub war or naval gunfire support, World In Flames can't differentiate in detail because it uses a 2-month turn and the sea boxes.

But its a strategic game and to drill down further in a manner that would be seen as more realistic would need a tactical approach. Naval movements and operations were complex but the time needed to mirror such things in a game would be out of proportion to the overall game experience imo.

I mean one could argue that what the sea boxes do in this strategic game is no different from the land or air battles. For example in land combat we stack corps/armies and perhaps some divisions and attack an opposition stack, roll a dice and there you go. There is no finesse or detail - no tactics. But that's accepted because its not that sort of game. The 'tactics' are limited to what units attack.

Same for the navy. I think those sea boxes do a pretty good job bearing in mind these are 2-month turns and the ships and aircraft put into those boxes will be a players best attempts at completing whatever operation(s) they need to complete. It means of course that one misses the detail, but in terms of game scale I think that's fair.

As I have been bleating on about for years, the Mediterranean June 1940 - May 43 is one of the most interesting theatres of World War II. A properly detailed land, air and sea game is crying out to be made. This is genuinely a game that could be 'won' by either side without resorting to artificial rules and counter values. There is just sooooo much to be explored - diplomatic as well as military - before even getting to the actual detail of running air and naval operations in support of the troops on the ground. Italians, Germans, Commonwealth, Iraqis, French, Free French, Vichy French, Americans, Greeks, possibly Spanish, possibly Turkish..... carrier warfare, surface ships, subs, merchant vessels, biplanes, modern fighters, bombers (tactical and strategic), tanks, paras, infantry, special ops, political in-fighting German/Italian, British/Indian/Australian/New Zealand, British/French, German/Spanish/Vichy/Italy, supply is of overriding concern to all ooooohhhhh make no mistake, this game has everything one could wish for in a war game. If only such a game could become reality......

It sounds like you are ready to design a wargame - I’d certainly play it. I think a purely naval game of Med operations would be fascinating. The smaller distances from shore made the light surface forces so much more significant with the capital ships a permanent Maybe as they hover just off-stage. One could hand out Victory Points to each side for each supply convoy or troop transport that reached destination. Events on land could follow a pure historical timeline or a system of random events that would create objectives for the naval forces - Allies invade Sardinia...Hitler sends Rommel extra Panzer division...Civil war in French colony...what have you.

A Med game would be excellent. I think the financial realities dictate that (at least the potential for) the invasion of Sicily would need to be included due to the American involvement. Also, the advertising would need to emphasise operations from Nov 42 onward to attract the American market. I just can't see a critical mass of American consumers being interested otherwise.

A similar command system to Command Ops would be my choice (obviously with a significant "upgrade" to handle naval matters). For anyone who hasn't seen that system, it's designed so that you give orders about two levels down in the chain of command and mostly rely on AI subordinates to micromanage (although you can if you want to). It works very well and it reflects how command is in the real world.

There is GRD's Wavell's War. Casablanca to Teheran, Thessalonica to Addis Ababa, at 16 miles to the hex! Very detailed air and land; naval units not as detailed but definitely present.

I am sure that Warspite would want more naval rules, but I don't think anyone could ask for more in the way of land or air.

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

There is GRD's Wavell's War. Casablanca to Teheran, Thessalonica to Addis Ababa, at 16 miles to the hex! Very detailed air and land; naval units not as detailed but definitely present.

I am sure that Warspite would want more naval rules, but I don't think anyone could ask for more in the way of land or air.

warspite1

Mmmm... the whole GR/D/HMS thing is something of a sore point given the money I invested.

I think one of the problems with the Europa series was the naval aspect. Who knows where the naval rules would have ended up but at the time the whole thing collapsed, the naval aspect - like so many games - was simply the b****** child that no one wanted to think about.

One of the reasons the War in the Med is so fascinating IS the naval aspect. No matter how good the land and air features are, the lack of consideration to the naval war lowers any attempt at a Mediterranean Campaign game.

Those with little or no interest in naval warfare may disagree [:)]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

A Med game would be excellent. I think the financial realities dictate that (at least the potential for) the invasion of Sicily would need to be included due to the American involvement. Also, the advertising would need to emphasise operations from Nov 42 onward to attract the American market. I just can't see a critical mass of American consumers being interested otherwise.

warspite1

And this is the thing, money talks and..... Although its strange because the East Front is such a big seller and yet there is a distinct lack of American involvement (lend lease aside [:)]).

What is ironic is that a game - even without Sicily (although by all means add Sicily in if it helps) - there is still American involvement following Torch.

There are also potential what-if scenarios involving Spain that could see earlier US involvement.

+1

I strongly support the motion to still include FROGMEN as optional rule, if at all possible. Despite understanding at least partly Steve's reservations about coding it, I think, the pro arguments are stronger. All face-to-face board games I have seen being started in the past, had this optional included. The main reason, it is fun and interesting to have such a "small" unit at your disposal and maybe to achieve some effect ...
After all, WiF and MWiF is (sometimes) kind of hard work and not always only pure fun ...
There have been some optionals coded, which were surely also not easily implemented, but which are far less popular with regular players.
Make MWiF more fun!

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I know its a moot point - because the optional isn't going to be coded anyway - but is this one of those Axis fanboi rules or does it cater for the British midget subs too?

After Italy changed sides in 1943, the frogmen captured at Alexandria offered their services to the Royal Navy. The RN accepted and a joint action by Italian and British frogmen sunk two Italian heavy cruisers - by then in German hands - in La Spezia harbor. Should the rule be used it could be interesting to state that it is easier for the British to use frogmen if Italy falls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Durand_de_la_Penne

+1

I agree with peskpesk and Harry Rowland, the game designer himself, Frogmen can potentially achieve an effect in the Med war theater and can make games more variable and interesting. It would be really great, if this optional could still be coded.