Naval units

[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.

[micheljq]

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.

Commonwealth had many carriers on the european theater. And it would be interesting that major powers like Germany and Italy have events allowing them to build some too. France had the CV Bearn.

Germany had plans for one carrier, the Graf Zeppelin, construction had begun but was soon abandoned, I would say it was half built.

Italy had plans for some carriers though those carriers remained on paper.

[doomtrader]

In all campaigns you will have a possibility to pay for finishing all naval units that the build up was started before scenario begins.

[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.

[willgamer]

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.

Simply Brilliant! [&o][:D]

I nominate this as feature request #1 for the next patch. [8D]

[jack54]

hi all

Lots of good stuff here,thanks for starting this tread. Here's my take.

Michael the pole's idea of added sea zones --great!!!

major and minor ports--numerical values are ok but not nessessary for me. (Minor ports- repair only;Major ports- repair,upgrade refit and deployment.)

no more auto upgrade,must dock in major port (I don't care if there is a delay, if there is fine, if not that's ok with me also.)

fleet pop-up window,please, no more scrolling.

semi historical naval 'option' with 'event' driven capital ships.(game start option only-- not manditory for those that prefer a pp driven naval system.)

I'm not sure what can be done without making it too crazy ,these are just my ideas, thanks!

[Tomokatu]

I'm another supporter of Michael the Pole's added sea zones to make land-based air attacks more realistic. I also like the idea of major and minor port status with certain tasks not available to minor ports - maybe repairs of CAs and SSs at minor ports but not BBs or CVs?
 
The rest, I could take or leave because I know that every implemented suggestion makes extra work and added complication. Extra complication increases the chances of failure.
 
You can have it quick.
You can have it good.
You can have it cheap.
Pick any two.[;)]

[Michael the Pole]

The idea behind having numerical values on ports is to allow them to be degraded and repaired by air or ground attack. There are countless historical examples of this from the War, noteably the amount of time that ports like Cherbourg were useless to the Allies following Overlord. Additionally, it allows a little more differentiation for supply capabilities of the really large ports such as Antwerp.

[AH4Ever]

A wise man once told me "I want to play a good realistic game but I don't want to have to button their tunics." He was speaking about Axis & Allies (the board game).

Ship repair - 1) The more damaged the ship the more costly the repair per hit point.
                 2) Limit repair to 1 or 2 hit points per turn
                 3) A port is a port is a port. That said Air Recon of ports to locate ships to bomb would be nice.

Ship production should be at least 5 times more expensive than it is now, so that you would have to bank your production points in order to expand your naval power. This became obvious to me while playing the USSR and having eliminated the Axis without going to war with the Allies. The Russian fleet was still blocked from entering the MED. I was able to float 3 nine group fleets through Italian ports in about 4 turns.

Naval Tech should not involve Upgrades, it should just lower the cost of production for new groups.

You might want to limit ship deployment to major ports but it is not absolutely necessary.

[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.

[AH4Ever]

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.

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."

[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."

[AH4Ever]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

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

Then someone who studies and tries to understand both. Are they amateur professionals or professional amateurs?

Now back to Mr. & Mrs America and All Ships at Sea:

I personally lost sight of the fact that these are not individual units. When we discuss repair, are we fixing the capital ship or it's invisible escort? I had a moment of clarity when I said to myself that initial state of Germany's Navy is most likely not damaged ships but their lack of escort class vessels.

Following this line of though, if we choose to beef up the Fleet before they set sail. Are we not just building more Destroyers or Subs? Therefore we would have to limit repair/replacement to ports with Shipyards.

Pardon me but I'm about to open another can of worms. Since naval units are patrols why not allow unit consolidation. I doubt the developers what to go down that road.

Lastly, I don't like that we have to park our fleets at sea for a week to give the opposition a chance to sink us. It is too unrealistic, It completely denies the existence of the Kiel Canal. How about there be a possibility of taking hits as you pass through zones?

If you have read this far, I thank you and I promise this will be my last post to this thread.[8|]

[H. Hoth]

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."

Liberty hall, you sir are a hypocrite.

[H. Hoth]

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.

Nope, read some books......to attack France where Germany didn't expect them to attack......Allikes, must be a Polish word.....also it was all about the tides.....Since you are so smart did you ever hear of the word "Mulberry".