Naval Movement Costs

[5cats]

I continue to be bothered by the excessive cost of extended naval movement. It seems completely unreasonable that moving from E.Med to W.Med costs the same as crossing the Atlantic or Pacific oceans! Consider the 3 Hvy & 3 Lt fleets the Axis have in the Med. To move E.Med to C.Med costs 6 supply, then moving from C.Med to W.Med, essentially the same distance, costs 18 more supply! 24 supply is one heck of a lot to get across the Med in 3 months! You could attach sails to the Hvys & do it for free in that time!

I reiterate my suggestion of 1 supply per zone moved, still capped as they are at 3 for Lt Fleets, & etc. The end results would be the same, but simple movement would be cheaper. Some lowering of the initial supplies may be required for balance, but otherwise it would essentially be a trade off in terms of who benifits most. At least I think so...

In the example, it would cost 12 supply in total to move those 6 ships across the Med. It would cost +6 more to move them out into the Atlantic, then +3 per zone after that for the next 2 zones. FAR more realistic! WAY better IMHO!

So Joel, guys, lets fix it!

[Paul Vebber]

Naval movement in the game is very much abstracted and is not just moving ships - but carrying out a "naval campaign" to control an area.

If you "just sailed around" the ships are all capable of moving from any area to any area in a three month time frame. The fuel and supply associated with "just moving from A to B" is rather minor. What you have to think about in game turns is the difference between "local area ops" and "deploying". A one area move - remember again this is over a three month period - indicates the ships are performing "local area operations" and staying close to the "base of operations" area. An "out of area" move - regardless of its true distance - requires a whole different scope of planning, resourcing and logistics "tail" to support than "local area ops".

That "tail" is what you are paying for, not the fuel to simply travel from "area A to area B" but to in effect reestablish an operating base to suppor the operations in the new area.

You are not simply paying to move ships - but the cost to project naval power locally - the cheap one area move- OR at a distance. In the Latter, the distance is not that big a thing, it the nature of the operation.

[WaterRabbit]

While a nice theory, that isn't really how it played out in WWII. Take the 53+ invasions they army did from 1943 to 1945 in the pacific. All of the fleets involved in this were self-contained -- even the 'tail'.

[Paul Vebber]

If a naval movement represented only a particluar invaision, that might be relevant, but a naval movement in the game represents 3 months of time and potentiallly several of those 53+ invasions which occured in what, 10 turns - thats 5 + per turn, many in the same area.

The "tail" is the strategic tail that transfers supply, fuel, and ammo TO those "self contained" fleets which in many cases from the US point of view generally were "moving only one area" - the point of island hopping.

The Japanese - primarily the ones operating 'out of area" in a strategic sense on the other hand operated with a far longer "tail" and were not as proficeint at underway replenishment as teh US.

You are thinking in high level tactical low operational terms, thinkng in terms of individual invasions, not the high operational/strategic level the game is played at.

If you can find a copy of Milan Vegos "Operational Warfare" this game concept comes right out of it.