Small fleet scenarios

[MagicMissile]

Hello,

Talking with someone I am playing about small fleets + and - I thought doesnt it make more sense if small fleets in Europe should be 4 ships not 3? So you can stack one ship of each type. Makes sense to me at least .

I guess that would be a pretty easy change to make.

Just an idea,

/MM

[AlvaroSousa]

It's the scale. Europe naval = 2x Pacific naval.

Thus pacific = 6 groups
Europe = 3 groups

[MagicMissile]

I understand. The games though are independent so I guess there is no real reason why we cant have 6/4 or if one wants to keep the proportion make it 8/4. Its not a big thing it just seems reasonable to me to be able to make a fleet consisting of all 4 types in one hex.

/MM

[CHINCHIN]

It seems like a good idea to me. I don't like the small fleet version, 3 seem few to me, 4 is better.

[malkarma]

Agree. 3 ships fleets left the carriers overexposed without need.

[AlvaroSousa]

That's why you need to be careful with them.

[sveint]

Small fleets are great, gives more historical/realistic naval battles.

Large fleets are nonsense, doomstacks running around, carriers are completely invincible, etc etc

[MagicMissile]

Oh I like the small fleet as well. Giving landbased air units a bit of a power boost still my gutfeeling if one can trust that is that 4 is the perfect number not 3 .

/MM

[sveint]

Still feel that way after seeing you latest turn? Scratch two flattops

[AlvaroSousa]

Land based air attacking ships is deadly. In most games it isn't represented correctly.

You have a permanent carrier with many more airplanes, parts, spares, and pilots with infinite refueling. CV gets within 50km they are as good as dead.

[malkarma]

I playing 4 games at moment, 2 against sveint and 2 against magicmissile. And my percepcion in all of the games is that now carriers are the damisel in peril of the fairie tales instead of being the powerhorse of war at sea that they were during WWII. And that perception is because you cant asemble a proper task force with only 3 ships. I agree with Magicmissile, 4 is the sweet spot...enough room to proper protect your carrier, but enough small to have 2 carriers in the task force properly covered.

[sveint]

I playing 4 games at moment, 2 against sveint and 2 against magicmissile. And my percepcion in all of the games is that now carriers are the damisel in peril of the fairie tales instead of being the powerhorse of war at sea that they were during WWII. And that perception is because you cant asemble a proper task force with only 3 ships. I agree with Magicmissile, 4 is the sweet spot...enough room to proper protect your carrier, but enough small to have 2 carriers in the task force properly covered.

When were CVs "powerhouses" in Europe? In the Atlantic and Pacific, sure.

What we need of course (WarPlan 2 ?) are more detailed naval units, where a CV unit represents a single carrier.

[malkarma]

No CV was sunk in the Mediterranian. And the only battle in wich carriers were engaged in surface combat during WWII was in St Bernardino strait action. However in our game this happened several times. I think that something is not working as it should.

But again, its only my personal perception. And inmho 4 ships fleets are not a big deal compared with 3 ships fleets.

[sveint]

No CV was sunk in the Mediterranian.

Because the Axis never sent major air power to the Med. They preferred wasting their airforce on bombing Britain and then of course using it against the Soviets. Players tend not to make the same mistake.

Also, several CVs were sunk by u-boats, something that is extremely rare in the game. At least with 3 units max there is a chance to attack the carriers. I know it's not ideal but it's better than 9 units per fleet.

[sveint]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... t_carriers

[malkarma]

Because the Axis never sent major air power to the Med. They preferred wasting their airforce on bombing Britain and then of course using it against the Soviets. Players tend not to make the same mistake.

Also, several CVs were sunk by u-boats, something that is extremely rare in the game. At least with 3 units max there is a chance to attack the carriers. I know it's not ideal but it's better than 9 units per fleet.

I agree in that 9 ships per fleet is too much. it´s simply that magicmissile an I think that 3 ships per fleet is too few and instead they should have a limit of up to 4 ships.
But again, this is a personal perception and can be wrong. Actually would like to read more opinions that the ones of both of us+Alvaro+Magicmissile.

ps: Maybe my opinion is biased because my playstile gives more importance to the aeronaval aspect of the game than of other players (just ask magicmissile what happened to the royal navy in the first tame that we played...actually, I think that the AAR of that game still exist).

[CHINCHIN]

It is that in small fleet mode, the submarines have an advantage, since they still have the maximum stack of 3, when the surface fleet decrease from 9 to 3.

[AlvaroSousa]

WP2 will have individual capital ships and about twice as many naval groups to represent the scale.

[ncc1701e]

Land based air attacking ships is deadly. In most games it isn't represented correctly.

You have a permanent carrier with many more airplanes, parts, spares, and pilots with infinite refueling. CV gets within 50km they are as good as dead.

I agree but why are they just missing their target in a reconnaissance high hex? What is the % of chance in this case?
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 2&t=394687

[ncc1701e]

It's the scale. Europe naval = 2x Pacific naval.

Thus pacific = 6 groups
Europe = 3 groups

I wonder if we must not force a rule for having escorts with CV. Something like:

Pacific = 6 groups - with 5 CV max
Europe = 3 groups - with 2 CV max

I will post my other ideas here:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 2&t=395356