Mediterranean Naval Units

@LHoffman:

Just found this (from Imperial Japanes Navy - Wikipedia):

“Japan put particular emphasis on aircraft carriers. The Imperial Japanese Navy started the Pacific War with 10 aircraft carriers, the largest and most modern carrier fleet in the world at that time. There were seven American aircraft carriers at the beginning of hostilities, only three operating in the Pacific; and eight British aircraft carriers, of which a single one operated in the Indian Ocean.”

As a note, Yamato and Musashi were not completed until after 1940.

Okay. 10 to 3 is about the same as 3 to 1. After Midway, they’d still have 6 carriers.

@LHoffman:

@UN:

I think the French fleet will be smaller to show the effects of scuttling it without actually having a scuttling rule.

I don’t understand this. If we’re ignoring the Vichy rule, why can’t we ignore the French naval scuttling either? I understand your concept, but because France’s ground lifespan isn’t going to be very long, at least give them a seizable fleet to work with.

I think the French fleet should be:

1 battleship, 2 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 2 subs, 2 transports

Did you want to say anything to this?

my point is the UK wont be able to bring both of its mediteranian fleets to bear on Italy at the same time because they are to dispersed. by UK 2 the Italian navy might be a target, but it might be near egypt by then and out of range of the gibraltar fleet.

It will be a game of cat and mouse in the med, well 2 small cats and one big rat.
Italys fleet will be able to crush EITHER the Egypt fleet, or the Gibraltar fleet. But not both without more support. With that knowledge, the UK player will keep his 2 smaller (smaller than the italian fleet) fleets out of range of the Italain fleet, but in doing so will be out of range to attack the Italian fleet in unison with both of his fleets.

UK 1 BB, 1 CA, 1 DD Egypt SZ + 1 AC, 1 CA, 1 DD Gibraltar SZ + 1 DD Malta SZ (associated land based air units)
Italy 2 BB, 2 CA, 2-3 DD, 1 SS Southern Italy SZ (associated land based air units)

Hey chaps,

I think some of the numbers of units mentioned here is too high.  Regardless of the historical numbers on each side, the numbers of units in the Med (and in the game in general) will be in relation to:

• the number of units in AAP40

• their relative success in the war

Therefore, even if the Italians had many submarines (mostly coastal vessels I suspect), because they failed utterly to use them effectively in real life AND we must keep proportions stable with the Japanese and the US Pacific fleets, I believe we will see fewer units.  My guess is:

• France: 1 CA, 1 Transport

• UK Gibraltar: 1 CV + air, 1 BB, 1 DD

• UK Malta: 1 Sub

• UK Egypt: 1 BB, 1 CA

• Italy: 1 BB, 1 CA, 1 DD, 1 Sub, 1 Transport

• Germany: -

Cheers,

Lozza007

Im really not comfortable giving Italy LESS of a fleet than it has in AA 50

At least 2 cruisers and a battleship

@LHoffman:

@Lozza007:

Hey chaps,

I think some of the numbers of units mentioned here is too high.  Regardless of the historical numbers on each side, the numbers of units in the Med (and in the game in general) will be in relation to:

• the number of units in AAP40

• their relative success in the war

Therefore, even if the Italians had many submarines (mostly coastal vessels I suspect), because they failed utterly to use them effectively in real life AND we must keep proportions stable with the Japanese and the US Pacific fleets, I believe we will see fewer units.  My guess is:

• France: 1 CA, 1 Transport

• UK Gibraltar: 1 CV + air, 1 BB, 1 DD

• UK Malta: 1 Sub

• UK Egypt: 1 BB, 1 CA

• Italy: 1 BB, 1 CA, 1 DD, 1 Sub, 1 Transport

• Germany: -

Cheers,

Lozza007

I think this is pretty realistic. The units will have to be proportional to previous standards, such as Pacific 40. I think that a good deal of the attack capabilities will depend on the number of sea zones in the Med. I have not studied the map in detail…. Calvin should know this dynamic better than I. Though with Naval bases, the Med will become a much smaller area than it should be in my opinion. I am growing to like this +1 movement thing for Air/Naval bases less and less… like IL said, it doesn’t model their purpose well.

Naval Base represents advanced ship facilities that allow a ship to travel farther before it runs out of fuel and has to be refueled by invisible oil tankers. Air base uses the same rationelle. IL says that ships in ports should be protected from naval attack. Why? Ships can hit other ships from a mile away(literally), so they don’t have to actually enter the port

@oztea:

Im really not comfortable giving Italy LESS of a fleet than it has in AA 50

At least 2 cruisers and a battleship

Isn’t a DD and SS worth more than a CA?

True. I guess bigger means more than increasing its value by 2 ipcs.

I think the 3 space movement in the Med is good for the UK since it can move from one side of the med to the other without being hit by axis air/navy in between. It is also good for the Italians, who can probably reach Gibraltar, egypt, and perhaps even caucusus(assuming axis controls Turkey)

@LHoffman:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Naval Base represents advanced ship facilities that allow a ship to travel farther before it runs out of fuel and has to be refueled by invisible oil tankers. Air base uses the same rationelle. IL says that ships in ports should be protected from naval attack. Why? Ships can hit other ships from a mile away(literally), so they don’t have to actually enter the port

I don’t know about getting an extra move though… I mean, a full tank of gas is a full tank of gas, whether you are at sea or coming out of port. Same for Air Bases. Wherever you would land has an airfield, and therefore fuel and supplies. Why does having an Air Base give you an extra move? Does a more major airfield mean you can get more out of your gas tank? I don’t know, it seems kinda unrealistic in that way. And it just allows even faster movement across the board… which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes the movement can get rather long. Especially with long range aircraft … if that will be available in Global.

I agree wholeheartedly with the repair rule for ships. I think that is a great idea. As for protected Naval Bases… I don’t think it is a bad idea. It gives them more reason for use and purchase, plus it was historically accurate for nations to hole their ships up in port for protection. Other than at Mers-el-Kabir I know of no direct naval assault on a major port facility. And Mers-el-Kabir doesn’t really count since the ships were technically friendly with regards to each other. The Italians kept their ships at Taranto, knowing the British wouldn’t send their fleet there… so they (the Brits) ended up putting together an airstrike to do the job. The Japanes didn’t use their ships at Pearl Harbor, only planes. The Tirpiz was never directly attacked by sea forces while He was in berth (as far as I know), Truk was not raided by naval units, only by American carrier aircraft… I am sure there are other examples. I am saying that there is obviously some reason why nobody did it in the war, and I think that is where the deterrant of a Naval Base should come into play.

But the tank may not be full if it starts in open sea, since oil tankers may not be enough to fill it. Both facilities make sure that the tank is full.

As for no naval attacks, I don’t know the obvious reason. if anyone does, please tell me

According to this: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=18890.0
Med is 4 zones wide and 2 zones tall

the rationelle for planes might be that an airbase equals a flat runway, which leads to less time being wasted taking off, and facilities that repair the plane from invisible damage

You know, at the end of the day, Airbases in AAE40 are not really useful.  They only exist at all to make the Pacific islands in AAP & AAP40 worth something….

Naval bases are good all round, as I always wondered why it took years to travel anywhere by sea in Axis and Allies!  :-o

Lozza007