RE: Citizens of London facing German Army

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Citizens of London facing German Army

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Citizens of London facing German Army - 12/27/2011 9:20:30 PM

Greyshaft

Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz

So... since this topic has strayed to Battle Over Britain, have you had enough game experience to recommend a change?

How about British Fighters based in the UK *defend* at one tech level higher than their actual tech level?
This bonus applies to interception attempts at Axis bombers (radar benefit) and ground strikes by Axis fighters (Civilian Repair Organisation benefit).

RAF fighters attacking Axis planes on the ground have no extra benefit.

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Razz1)

Post #: 61

RE: Citizens of London facing German Army - 12/27/2011 9:41:07 PM

Razz1

Posts: 2560
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline

Can't do that, but we can simulate the defense and radar.

Tech level is not historically accurate plus it is not territorial, so way to much of an advantage. Especially when GB develops jets a year earlier than Germany.

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 62

RE: Citizens of London facing German Army - 12/28/2011 10:40:32 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz
So... since this topic has strayed to Battle Over Britain, have you had enough game experience to recommend a change?

Razz - this thread started because Doomtrader asked for opinions on the likely defence of London, the thread crept into Sea Lion and the Battle of Britain, which are related topics.

Do we have enough experience to recommend changes in the game, maybe not, but we have experience enough to express options and the devs can decide whether they are relevant, or useful.

Comment be me on another thread - The game is the product of much development and testing, it would be unreasonable to make major changes, when it has only just been released, without considering the overall effects on the game. Until the rest of us have had significant experience with the game, the devs and testers are probably the best people to judge, but it is necessary for the users to comment on how they find the game.

I, for one, am expressing ideas for those who have the development knowledge to consider, what happens next is up to them.

If the game is to reflect historical capabilities then my option is that the British fighter airfields are too easy to destroy (air defence etc.), this goes with the comments of others that Sea Lion is too easy (I can't comment, as I've not tried it yet), whether this is true, or can be modelled differently, is your departmnent.

The suggestion on British fighter tech level was intended to apply to UK airfields only and not change the base British basic tech level everywhere else on the map. When the base British tech level catches up, with the UK only bonus, then tech level continues to increase overall normally, there will be no early British jets.

If that's not possible, so be it, as with many ideas, they crash and burn, but it was worth the flight. Would be interested how radar and defence can be simulated.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 12/28/2011 10:43:41 AM >

_____________________________

"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon

�A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything� - Napoleon

�Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon

(in reply to Razz1)

Post #: 63

RE: Citizens of London facing German Army - 12/28/2011 5:00:26 PM

Razz1

Posts: 2560
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline

The tech level option is not possible. The radar and defense can be simulated though increased effectiveness in the homeland.

Right now I'm not sure we need it as the British keep replacing their losses.

So while you can kill them it costs you too much PP in your fighter losses and becomes a loosing proposition.

After a couple of try's to eliminate the RAF I think you will agree. Anyhow, we will have to wait and see over several more games and feedback.

I'm not sure whether a human vs human would need the increased effectiveness. However if they do, then that would be a good reason to add it.

Why don't you try again to eliminate the RAF and then conduct operation Barbarossa? Then tell us how much PP you spent and whether you would have liked to keep some of that for Barbarossa. At what point in time did you stop fighting in the West for control over the skies?
Was it before Barbarossa or did you continue to fight both fronts?
Once you reached level 3 air tech, was it any easier? Was it still too costly?

All of this is in context of no Operation Sea Lion.

You can use the statistics in the Report menu to see your losses in combat. At the start of Barbarossa I have killed 632 vs 469 losses. This includes bombing raids and sea strikes. At one point GB was screaming bloody murder as I could hear them over the channel. Cities were being bombed and I was supreme, but then the RAF came back and I needed PP for War in the East.

Sometimes you may have a bad round of combat. Two of those rounds and you can have allot of experienced fighters killed. When I mean bad round I mean you can attack with six fighters and each fighter looses 2 points with very few losses for the RAF. Then it's their turn and they bomb you.

When you get a bad round it makes you think twice. Is it worth it? Especially if they succeeded in killing one or more units.
The good news is they are on their knees and not on your shore. Your pilots are experienced and ready for Barbarossa.

Didn't some say above that there was plenty of air frames and engines, so planes were not the problem? Didn't they also say the pilots produced like bunnies?

That's just like the game. Pretty bloody over the skies of Britain.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 64

RAF is too vulnerable - 12/28/2011 9:40:28 PM

Greyshaft

Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz
The tech level option is not possible. The radar and defense can be simulated though increased effectiveness in the homeland.
Right now I'm not sure we need it as the British keep replacing their losses.
So while you can kill them it costs you too much PP in your fighter losses and becomes a loosing proposition.
After a couple of try's to eliminate the RAF I think you will agree.

I am finding the opposite with German free setup. The following campaign has worked for me three times.

Step 1: Set up all arm/mech/planes between Luxembourg and Switzerland. Redeploy Polish arm/mech to the west ... let the infantry take Warsaw
Step 2: Blow a three hex hole in the Maginot line and take Dijon. Build three fighters.
Step 3: Head north and take Reims and Paris then push west on a broad front until France surrenders. Build amphib points.
Step 4: Redeploy all aircraft to Calais and send armor/mech to Channel ports.
Step 5: Recon UK with bombers till you find UK fighters (normally northeast of London) then destroy RAF. Better to eliminate one RAF unit totally than just damage three or four units since they can be reinforced back to full strength in one turn but it takes six turns to create a new fighter..
Step 6: Send the entire Kreigsmarine into Channel. Bomb Dover. Land armor adjacent to Dover. Take Dover. (Poland has probably surrendered by now).
Step 7: Set up a convoy to Dover. Use sea transport to reinforce invasion force with Infantry Corps. Send armor scouting north to overrun RAF where possible - they like to hide near Ipswich and Birmingham.
Step 8: Push north until UK sues for peace - accept peace treaty.
Step 9: Redeploy to the east for the main event - Barbarossa! By now it is mid 1940 so just build your troops in the east for a start in early 1941.

The discussion about Sealion has come and gone and I agree that it is far to easy to *resupply* the German army in the UK. That is another discussion. My point is that once I recon the RAF it is too easy to destroy each unit. If I allocate 3-4 German fighters to each target then I can easily destroy them on the ground. Since I have 6-7 German fighters by then that means I can wipe out two RAF fighter units every turn. The UK keeps producing them but that just means that when I land they haven't invested in any ground troops and my job is a lot easier.

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Razz1)

Post #: 65

RE: RAF is too vulnerable - 12/28/2011 9:51:32 PM

Razz1

Posts: 2560
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline

You forgot the most important part of my post.

All of this is in context of no Operation Sea Lion.

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 66

RE: RAF is too vulnerable - 12/29/2011 8:28:45 AM

aspqrz02

Posts: 1024
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

I'd like to point out that, historically, in September 1939 -

* The Luftwaffe had only about 1100-1200 fighters
* The RAF had about 600 fighters in Europe

Yet, in the setup -

* Luftwaffe get 7 Fighter units with 48 Strength Points, 42 at Level 2, 6 at Level 1
* RAF gets a total of 13 SP of Fighters (including those in Egypt)
* So, based on Luftwaffe historical strength and the number of Fighter SP they start with, that's c. 25 Fighters per SP

Ergo, to properly reflect reality, the RAF starting strength should be 21 SP of fighters, or +8 SP

Likewise, there is a similar discrepancy, as far as I can tell, in the amount of TacAir and Strategic Bombers available to the RAF.

Assuming the same number of aircraft (25, see above) equal a TacAir/Strategic Air point, the RAF had 920 Bombers in 1939, of which 350 were classed as "long range" ... so they *should* have -

* 14 Strategic Bombing SP
* 23 TacAir SP

You could argue as to whether the Strategic Bombers should only be Level 1 or not, or how many of them should be Level 1 and how many Level 2, but they are way under strength as well (I didn't check the Luftwaffe Bomber strength for this, and, in any case, differentiating between Strategic and TacAir for the Luftwaffe would be difficult in real life ... they should have no Strategic, and all their Bombers should really be TacAir, but YMMV).

I believe there are similar strength discrepancies with the relative Kriegsmarine - Regia Marina and RN - Marine Republique strengths in pretty much all categories as well, but I still need to work on those figures.

One thing I would suggest would be to allow players to purchase Fighter/TacAir/Bomber *Strength Points* rather than force them to buy full strength units ... that, and allowing them to be combined (is this possible for air units?) like ground units, would minimise the unrealistic tactics that Greyshaft has found are usable (not *blaming* Greyshaft! merely pointing out that he has shown a flaw in the way the system can be gamed).

Certainly, giving the RAF more aircraft points to better reflect historical strength would make Greyshaft's tactics much, much less viable as there would be more of the RAF to destroy, and the cost would become prohibitive, as it was, historically.

And that doesn't even cover how under strength the French Air Force is, either, which would further increase Luftwaffe losses and, therefore, consequently make Sealion even less possible.

Phil

(in reply to Razz1)

Post #: 67

RE: RN is too vulnerable - 12/29/2011 9:45:11 AM

aspqrz02

Posts: 1024
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

Doing a quick check for the 1939 at start naval strengths for the major powers (and, yes, this takes into account that some units are under strength at start ... number of DDs is extrapolated at -1SP in a unit = -1 DD) -

RN (Time of Fury Strength)
6 CV (6 CV + 30 DD)
15 BB/BC (15 BB/BC + 57 DD)
38 CA/CL(38 CA/CL + 53 DD)
13 SS (44 SS)
140 DD

Actual RN Strength (Europe + Egypt)
3 CV
12 BB
26 CA/CL
122 DD
33 SS

So, the RN has ...

+3 CV
+3 BB/BC
+12 CA/CL
+11 SS
+18 DD

Considerably over strength in all areas.

French Navy (ToF TOE)
1 CV (1 CV, 5 DD)
12 BB (12 BB, 60 DD)
6 CA/CL (6 CA/CL, 18 DD)
83 DD
21 SS (84 SS)

Historical TOE
1 CV
5 BB/BC
13 CA/CL
70 DD
57 SS

So, the Republican Marine has ...
+7 BB
-7 CA/CL
+13 DD
+27 SS

... also considerably overstrength (though maybe the +7 BB should be the -7 CA/CL?)

Kriegsmarine (ToF TOE)
4 PB/BB (4 PB/BB, 16 DD)
9 CA/CL (9 CA/CL, 14 DD)
30 DD
56 SS

Historical TOE
7 BB (2 BB, 3 PB, 2 Old BB)
8 CA/CL
22 DD
62 SS

So, the Kriegsmarine has ...
-3 BB (-2 Old BB, -1 PB)
+1 CA/CL
+8 DD
-6 SS*

... maybe the 2 Old BB equal the +1 CA/CL? Probably should be +2 in that case. Too many DD. Too few SS*.

* Well, maybe not. I'd have to check some references, but IIRC, a fair few of the U-Boats nominally available were actually older models that really weren't suitable for much more than Coastal use.

Regia Marina (ToF TOE)
4 BB (4 BB, 10 DD)
22 CA/CL (22 CA/CL, 42 DD)
52 DD
25 SS (100 SS)

Historical TOE
6 BB (4 New/Refurbished, 2 Partly Refurbished)
19 CA/CL
59 DD
116 SS

So, the Italians have ...

-2 BB
-3 CA/CL
-7 DD
-16 SS

... fairly close to reality.

So, the numbers here are all over the place. Not as shonky as the air strengths, though

Phil

(in reply to aspqrz02)

Post #: 68

RE: RAF is too vulnerable - 12/29/2011 10:23:52 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
I'd like to point out that, historically, in September 1939 -

* The Luftwaffe had only about 1100-1200 fighters
* The RAF had about 600 fighters in Europe

You have to be careful with these figures as the 39 squadrons of Fighter Command in September 1939, included 4 Squadrons of Gladiators and 7 Squadrons of Blenheim 1F nightfighters. These two aircraft types had limited usefulness in fighter combat. I don't know how the figures translate for the German fighter force.

If any adjustment is to be made, than I suppose it could be in the form of effectiveness, with an additional effectiveness bonus given to RAF fighter units, based in the UK, to reflect the advantage of the British air defence system.

As the game develops and overall tech levels increase it would represent, among other things, the further development of radar by both sides, eventually resulting in neither having a particular advantage in that area.

So, I am not necessarily asking for a change, but rather asking how it could be done, when experience with the game permits a reasonable judgement to be made.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 12/29/2011 11:20:00 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to aspqrz02)

Post #: 69

RE: RAF is too vulnerable - 12/29/2011 10:50:34 AM

Greyshaft

Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz
You forgot the most important part of my post.
All of this is in context of no Operation Sea Lion.

I don't agree with "No Sea Lion"as a ground rule... why does the game map cover the UK if not to allow a chance to successfully invade?

IMHO if the Germans don't believe that they have chance to win Sealion and the British don't believe that they have a chance to lose Sealion then you are not refighting WWII. I think most of us Monday morning quarterbacks agree that it wasn't going to work but no-one knew that at the time (except maybe the planning staff at the Kriegsmarine). If you are thinking of bringing out a patch that makes Sealion absolutely impossible them please notify me in advance because I won't install it! Sure, make it more difficult for the Germans but give me a fighting chance to pull it off. Let's keep everybody guessing, just like in 1940.

BTW I don't think pounding a RAF squadron to destruction is gaming the system - I'd say it's just common sense!

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Razz1)

Post #: 70

RE: Citizens of London facing German Army - 12/29/2011 10:54:23 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz
Didn't some say above that there was plenty of air frames and engines, so planes were not the problem? Didn't they also say the pilots produced like bunnies?

That's just like the game. Pretty bloody over the skies of Britain.

Thanks very much for the insight into the working of the game. I expect that I will be using play against the AI and although I know this is not the best way to exploit the game, I can't commit the time to do otherwise. The game then has to balance for both AI and PBEM, individual mods seems to be the way to adjust the game to each need.

If I understand your comments, does that mean that fighter units based in the UK can have their effectiveness level increased (to reflect the effect of the air defence system). This would be historical, as only some Hurricane squadrons were sent to France in 1940, Spitfire squadrons remained at their airfields in the UK throughout the battle for France.

Not sure about the bunnies, don't their ears get in the way, in such tight cockpits.

Pilots were in short supply mid-BoB, with men being drawn from other RAF Commands (Coastal, Bomber, etc.) and many pilots converted into the RAF from the Volunteer Reserves, Commonwealth countries and nations that had already fallen to the Germans. It was one of the critical issues for Dowding, but the Luftwaffe broke before the RAF, the point being that however critical it was, Fighter Command was able to stay the course.

_____________________________

(in reply to Razz1)

Post #: 71

RE: Citizens of London facing German Army - 12/29/2011 11:16:13 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz
Why don't you try again to eliminate the RAF and then conduct operation Barbarossa? Then tell us how much PP you spent and whether you would have liked to keep some of that for Barbarossa. At what point in time did you stop fighting in the West for control over the skies?
Was it before Barbarossa or did you continue to fight both fronts?
Once you reached level 3 air tech, was it any easier? Was it still too costly?

'Barbarossa' is already on me, I haven't quite finished with France and the East Front is aflame, 'the Russians are coming'. I can't answer your questions in this game and it is too good to give up now, it's summer 1940 and I'm juggling several fronts.

I am having good success in airfield attacks against the French and British fighter units in France, although I am not having so much success against bomber airfields (subject of another thread). It maybe because I am attacking the fighter airfields first and by the time I get round to attacking the bomber airfields, I am left with using depleted fighter units. I may go back to some of the earlier saved turns and re-run the attacks with different tactics and see what happens.

I am clearing the French Channel coast right now, but air attacks on allied ground units are regularly being intercepted by fighters from Britain, which hurts, but I need the coastal areas before I can move in fighters to suppress the RAF, or do I move East ?.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 12/29/2011 11:26:24 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Razz1)

Post #: 72

RE: RAF is too vulnerable - 12/29/2011 12:24:05 PM

aspqrz02

Posts: 1024
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

Indeed.

The RAF, as of 1939, had 16 Squadrons of Hurricanes, 11 of Spitfires, 4 of Gladiators and 7 of Blenheim Night Fighters.

Now, AIUI, the Hurricane, Spitfire and Gladiator Squadrons had an establishment of 18 aircraft each. I don't know for sure about the Blenheims, I have a vague, probably erroneous, recollection that they had less, perhaps 12 per Squadron.

As far as Tech Level is concerned, there's really no difference between the Spits and Hurris, so that's 27 x 18 = 486 TL2 fighters, or 19 SP (@ 25 aircraft per SP). The Gladiators and the Blenheim's can be classed as TL1, I guess, so thats 4 x 18 and 7 x 12 = 156, or 6 Fighter SP, for a total of 25 SP between the two groups by TL.

Now, yes, 4 of the Hurricane Squadrons (3 SP) were sent to France ... but that's a player decision, not a reason not to include them.

And its still *double* the SP strength the RAF is given in the 1939 scenario (25 vs. 13 SP).

If the RAF is upgraded to its real operational strength in Europe in all of the 1939 start Scenarios, Sealion becomes much, much, much more risky.

Add in the French Air Force of 826 fighter aircraft, or 33 SP, for which I don't have a type breakdown handy, but which were, one presumes, mostly TL1 rather than TL2, and the Luftwaffe starts to have serious problems even breaking through the Maginot Line (and therefore attacking through the Ardennes, as historically), I expect ... let alone winning the Battle of France quickly enough and inexpensively enough to make a Sealion attempt the doddle that Greyshaft has found.

YMMV.

But wishing them away, presumably either for *balance*, or, possibly, out of lack of information, isn't the way to go.

Yes, changing things to "reality" levels will make things harder than they are currently for the Germans ... but, since it seems clear that the attack in the west is far too easy as it stands, that's a needed change.

YMMV of course,

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 73

RE: RAF is too vulnerable - 12/29/2011 12:31:28 PM

aspqrz02

Posts: 1024
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

I tend to agree with you, on one level.

For those players who want a "balanced" game, where ahistorical things that really couldn't have happened *can* happen, fine, I don't think anyone has a real problem with that, however it is achieved ... whether by making Sealion possible when it wasn't, or by gutting the RAF and the French Air Force in comparison to the Luftwaffe ...

On the other hand, I, personally, and, I presume, an unknown, but hopefully significant, number of others would like to have a *historical* scenario with something like a historical OOB and constraints on supply, production, or *whatever* that will prevent things that simply were not possible given a 1939 start date from *being* possible.

I see these sorts of games as a way to measure my (generally mediocre

) strategy skills against a historical metric ... can I do better than Churchill/Alanbrooke and FDR/Eisenhower when I play the Allies, or better than Hitler et al if I play the Germans ... within the same constraints that all parties historically had to work within.

Lots of people don't want that ... fine ... I'm not suggesting you be forced to ... but have the courtesy to not force *me* to play some thinly disguised fantasy game on something resembling the map of Europe (which doesn't actually apply to ToF! It did, IMO, to HoI3 ... and I wasn't the only one disappointed with that game for that reason ... ToF holds much much more promise!

)

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 74

RE: RAF is too vulnerable - 12/29/2011 12:31:40 PM

Severian

Posts: 111
Joined: 7/27/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline

@aspqrz

I can not agree with you. If you had diffrent sources - show them.

1. Royal Navy:
a) Aircraft Carriers:
- HMS Ark Royal and HMS Furious - Home Fleet, Scapa Flow
- HMS Argus - Reserve Fleet, Portsmouth
- HMS Courageous and HMS Hermes - Channel Force, Plymouth and Portland
- HMS Glorious - Mediterranean Fleet, Alexandria, Egipt
Summary - 6 CV's

Off-map:
- HMS Eagle, on sea near Singapore

b) Battleships and battlecruisers:
- 2nd Battle Squadron, radm Blagoven, Scapa Flow, Home Fleet
-- HMS Royal Sovereign
-- HMS Ramillies
-- HMS Royal Oak
-- HMS Nelson
-- HMS Rodney
- Battle Cruiser Squadron, radm. Whitworth, Scapa Flow, Home Fleet
-- HMS Repulse
-- HMS Hood
-- HMS Renown (at sea to the Scapa Flow)
- 1st Battle Squadron, vadm Layton, Alexandria, Egypt, Mediterrean Fleet
-- HMS Warspite
-- HMS Barham
-- HMS Malaya
- Reserve Fleet, vadm Horton
-- HMS Valiant, Devonport
-- HMS Queen Elisabeth, Portsmouth
- 3rd Battle Squadron, radm Holland, Portland, Channel Force
-- HMS Resolution
-- HMS Revenge
Summary: 12 BB's, 3 BC's

c) Cruisers - heavy, light, antiaircraft
- 18th Cruiser Squadron, radm Halifax, Scapa Flow, Home Fleet
-- HMS Aurora
-- HMS Sheffield
-- HMS Belfast
-- HMS Edinburgh
-- HMS Norfolk
-- HMS Newcastle
- HMS Calcutta, Home Fleet
- 1st Cruiser Squadron, vadm Cunnigham, Alexandria, Egypt, Mediterranean Fleet
-- HMS Devonshire
-- HMS Shropshire
-- HMS Sussex
- 3rd Cruiser Squadron, radm Moore, Alexandria, Egypt, Mediterranean Fleet
-- HMS Arethusa
-- HMS Penelope
-- HMS Galatea
- Reserve Fleet
-- HMS Hawkins
-- HMS Frobisher
-- HMS Carlisle
-- HMS Curlew
- Nore Command
-- HMS London
-- HMS Curacao
- Portsmouth Command
-- HMS Suffolk
- 2nd Cruiser Squadron, vadm Edwards-Collins, Humber, Humber Force
-- HMS Southampton
-- HMS Glasgow
- Channel Force, Portland
-- HMS Ceres
-- HMS Caradoc
-- HMS Cairo
- 7th Cruiser Squadron, cpt Dicken, Scapa Flow, Northern Patrol
-- HMS Diomede
-- HMS Dragon
-- HMS Calypso
-- HMS Caledon
- 12th Cruiser Squadron, vadm Horton, Scapa Flow, Northern Patrol
-- HMS Effingham
-- HMS Cardiff
-- HMS Dunedin
-- HMS Emerald
-- HMS Enterprise, Portsmouth
-- HMS Delhi, The Nore
- 11th Cruiser Squadron, cpt Scott, Gibraltar, North Atlantic Command
-- HMS Colombo
-- HMS Capetown
Summary: 38 cruisers

Off-map:
- 6th Cruiser Squadron, Freetwon
-- HMS Neptune
- 9th Cruiser Squadron, Freetown
-- HMS Despatch
-- HMS Danae
-- HMS Dauntless
-- HMS Durban
- South America Division, Port Stanley
-- HMS Exeter
-- HMS Ajax
-- HMS Cumberland
- 8th Cruiser Squadron, America & West Indies Command
-- HMS Berwick
-- HMS York
-- HMS Orion
-- HMS Perth (Royal Australian Navy)
- 5th Cruiser Squadron, China Station
-- HMS Kent
-- HMS Cornwall
-- HMS Dorsetshire
-- HMS Birmingham
- 4th Cruiser Squadron, Ceylon
-- HMS Gloucester
-- HMS Liverpool
-- HMS Manchester

There is too many DD's and SS's to show you everyone.

2. Marine Nationale:
a) Battleships and battlecruisers
- 1st Battle Division, Brest
-- Dunkerque
-- Strasbourg
- 2nd Battle Division, Oran
-- Lorraine
-- Bretagne
- 3rd Battle Division, Brest
-- Paris
-- Courbet
- Reserve units:
-- Provence (scuttled in Toulon, 1942, sister-ship to the Bretagne and Lorraine)
Summary: 7 BB's and BC's (I will include Provence in next patch)
And why in ToF is so many French BB's? Cause of mistake. Few cruisers (Algerie, Foch, Dupleix, Duquesne and Tourville) are included with wrong type ID.

b) Cruisers
- 4th Cruiser Divisiion, Brest
-- Georges Leygues
-- Gloire
-- Montcalm
- 1st Cruiser Squadron
-- Algerie
-- Foch
-- Dupleix
-- Duguesne
-- Colbert
-- Tourville
- 3rd Cruiser Division, Bizerte
-- Marseillaise
-- Jean De Vienne
-- La Galisonniere
Summary: 12 cruisers

3. Kriegsmarine
1. Battleships and battlecruisers
- Scharnhorst
- Gneisenau
- Schleswig-Holstein
- Schlesien
And that's all. German themselve reclassifed "pocket battleships" as heavy cruisers. In fact term "pocket battleship" was idea of British press and had no connection to official naval classification. Whole Deutschland-class was heavily armed, but their armour and gun caliber was far less than classic dreadnought-battleship. Their only advantage in such meeting is speed to escape from battlefield. German admirals was aware about that and gave orders to avoid battle to any British battleship including oldest Revenge-class, so if decision about classification them in ToF as battleships would be wrong.

2. Cruisers:
- Admiral Graf Spee
- Deutschland
- Admiral Scheer
- Admiral Hipper
- Konigsberg
- Emden
- Karlsruhe
- Koln
- Lepizig
- Nunberg
Summary: 10 cruisers
In fact now it's still missing one in ToF - Emden

4. Regia Marina
1. Battleships
- Conte di Cavour
- Giulio Cesare
- Caio Duilio (not operational, modernisation until 26.10.1940)
- Andrea Doria (not operational, modernisation until 15.07.1940)
- Littorio (not fully operational, commisioned on 6.05.1940)
- Vittorio Veneto (not fully operational, commisioned on 28.04.1940)
Summary: 6 BB's, 2 operational. Littorio, Vittorio Veneto and Roma will come in proper events in game.
Change: by mistake Caio Duilio had wrong name, it will be corrected

2. Cruisers
- 4th Squadron
-- Alberico da Barbiano
-- Luigi Cadorna
-- Alberto di Giussano
-- Armando Diaz
- 1st Squadron
-- Zara
-- Gorizia
-- Fiume
- 8th Squadron
-- Duca degli Abruzzi
-- Giuseppe Garibaldi
- 2nd Squadron
-- Bande Nere
-- Bartolomeo Colleoni
- 3rd Squadron
-- Bolzano
-- Trieste
-- Trento
- 6th Squadron
-- Pola
- 7th Squadron
-- Eugenio di Savoia
-- Duca d'Aosta
-- Muzio Attendolo
-- Raimondo Montecuccoli
- Cruiser Group
-- Bari
-- Taranto
- Libya Naval Command
-- San Giorgio
Summary: 22 Cruisers

_____________________________

War, war never changes... but are you sure? Bitter Glory

Put an apple in your mouth, we'll play Wilhelm Tell - "Hawkeye" Pierce to Frank Burns

(in reply to aspqrz02)

Post #: 75

RE: RAF is too vulnerable - 12/29/2011 3:57:26 PM

aspqrz02

Posts: 1024
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Severian

@aspqrz

I can not agree with you. If you had diffrent sources - show them.

1. Royal Navy

b) Battleships and battlecruisers:
- 2nd Battle Squadron, radm Blagoven, Scapa Flow, Home Fleet
-- HMS Royal Sovereign
-- HMS Ramillies
-- HMS Royal Oak
-- HMS Nelson
-- HMS Rodney
- Battle Cruiser Squadron, radm. Whitworth, Scapa Flow, Home Fleet
-- HMS Repulse
-- HMS Hood
-- HMS Renown (at sea to the Scapa Flow)
- 1st Battle Squadron, vadm Layton, Alexandria, Egypt, Mediterrean Fleet
-- HMS Warspite
-- HMS Barham
-- HMS Malaya
- Reserve Fleet, vadm Horton
-- HMS Valiant, Devonport
-- HMS Queen Elisabeth, Portsmouth
- 3rd Battle Squadron, radm Holland, Portland, Channel Force
-- HMS Resolution
-- HMS Revenge
Summary: 12 BB's, 3 BC's

http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Orders-of-Battle/Fleets-September-1939.htm

Cites 15 BB/BC total, but only 7 in the Home Fleet, 2 in Home Waters and 3 in Alexandria

Doesn't indicate where the other three are, and doesn't give names of ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Severian

c) Cruisers - heavy, light, antiaircraft
- 18th Cruiser Squadron, radm Halifax, Scapa Flow, Home Fleet
-- HMS Aurora
-- HMS Sheffield
-- HMS Belfast
-- HMS Edinburgh
-- HMS Norfolk
-- HMS Newcastle
- HMS Calcutta, Home Fleet
- 1st Cruiser Squadron, vadm Cunnigham, Alexandria, Egypt, Mediterranean Fleet
-- HMS Devonshire
-- HMS Shropshire
-- HMS Sussex
- 3rd Cruiser Squadron, radm Moore, Alexandria, Egypt, Mediterranean Fleet
-- HMS Arethusa
-- HMS Penelope
-- HMS Galatea
- Reserve Fleet
-- HMS Hawkins
-- HMS Frobisher
-- HMS Carlisle
-- HMS Curlew
- Nore Command
-- HMS London
-- HMS Curacao
- Portsmouth Command
-- HMS Suffolk
- 2nd Cruiser Squadron, vadm Edwards-Collins, Humber, Humber Force
-- HMS Southampton
-- HMS Glasgow
- Channel Force, Portland
-- HMS Ceres
-- HMS Caradoc
-- HMS Cairo
- 7th Cruiser Squadron, cpt Dicken, Scapa Flow, Northern Patrol
-- HMS Diomede
-- HMS Dragon
-- HMS Calypso
-- HMS Caledon
- 12th Cruiser Squadron, vadm Horton, Scapa Flow, Northern Patrol
-- HMS Effingham
-- HMS Cardiff
-- HMS Dunedin
-- HMS Emerald
-- HMS Enterprise, Portsmouth
-- HMS Delhi, The Nore
- 11th Cruiser Squadron, cpt Scott, Gibraltar, North Atlantic Command
-- HMS Colombo
-- HMS Capetown
Summary: 38 cruisers

Off-map:
- 6th Cruiser Squadron, Freetwon
-- HMS Neptune
- 9th Cruiser Squadron, Freetown
-- HMS Despatch
-- HMS Danae
-- HMS Dauntless
-- HMS Durban
- South America Division, Port Stanley
-- HMS Exeter
-- HMS Ajax
-- HMS Cumberland
- 8th Cruiser Squadron, America & West Indies Command
-- HMS Berwick
-- HMS York
-- HMS Orion
-- HMS Perth (Royal Australian Navy)
- 5th Cruiser Squadron, China Station
-- HMS Kent
-- HMS Cornwall
-- HMS Dorsetshire
-- HMS Birmingham
- 4th Cruiser Squadron, Ceylon
-- HMS Gloucester
-- HMS Liverpool
-- HMS Manchester

According to the same source, 15 CA/CL in Home Fleet, 2 in North Atlantic Command, 5 in Home Waters and 6 in Alexandria

Total 28

They had 48 CA/CL all up, with a further 8 RAN or RNZN.

Source doesn't provide names, sadly.

And, an oopsie, I missed the 8 CLAA and 1 CLM, making it 56 RN and 8 RAN/RNZN CA/CL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Severian

There is too many DD's and SS's to show you everyone.

Another oopsie ...

113 Modern DD
68 Old DD

181 total

However, source indicates ...

17 with Home Fleet, 9 with North Atlantic Command, 65 in Home Waters, 31 (+4 Escorts) in Alex.

Total = 122 (+4 Escorts)

65 Subs (53 Modern, 12 Old)

21 with Home Fleet, 2 in North Atlantic Command, 10 in Alex

Total = 33

I didn't include Minesweepers (44 total: 7 Home Fleet, 2 North Atlantic Command, 12 Home Waters, 5 Alex) or Escorts (48 + 4 RAN and 2 RInN: no breakdown) or the 2 Monitors (no breakdown, but I believe they started the war in the UK or Med)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Severian

2. Marine Nationale:
a) Battleships and battlecruisers
- 1st Battle Division, Brest
-- Dunkerque
-- Strasbourg
- 2nd Battle Division, Oran
-- Lorraine
-- Bretagne
- 3rd Battle Division, Brest
-- Paris
-- Courbet
- Reserve units:
-- Provence (scuttled in Toulon, 1942, sister-ship to the Bretagne and Lorraine)
Summary: 7 BB's and BC's (I will include Provence in next patch)
And why in ToF is so many French BB's? Cause of mistake. Few cruisers (Algerie, Foch, Dupleix, Duquesne and Tourville) are included with wrong type ID.

Good to hear!

Source cited, 7 BB/BC

3 in Med, 2 in Atlantic ... doesn't seem to include those in North Africa

quote:

ORIGINAL: Severian
b) Cruisers
- 4th Cruiser Divisiion, Brest
-- Georges Leygues
-- Gloire
-- Montcalm
- 1st Cruiser Squadron
-- Algerie
-- Foch
-- Dupleix
-- Duguesne
-- Colbert
-- Tourville
- 3rd Cruiser Division, Bizerte
-- Marseillaise
-- Jean De Vienne
-- La Galisonniere
Summary: 12 cruisers

7 CA, 12 CL = 19 Cruisers, total

10 Med, 3 Atlantic (again, I suspect it may not include North Africa)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Severian

3. Kriegsmarine
1. Battleships and battlecruisers
- Scharnhorst
- Gneisenau
- Schleswig-Holstein
- Schlesien
And that's all. German themselve reclassifed "pocket battleships" as heavy cruisers. In fact term "pocket battleship" was idea of British press and had no connection to official naval classification. Whole Deutschland-class was heavily armed, but their armour and gun caliber was far less than classic dreadnought-battleship. Their only advantage in such meeting is speed to escape from battlefield. German admirals was aware about that and gave orders to avoid battle to any British battleship including oldest Revenge-class, so if decision about classification them in ToF as battleships would be wrong.

Source, 2 BB, 2 Old BB, 3 PB

So, should be 4 BB, with the 2 Old BB being TL1, presumably, or reduced strength.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Severian

2. Cruisers:
- Admiral Graf Spee
- Deutschland
- Admiral Scheer
- Admiral Hipper
- Konigsberg
- Emden
- Karlsruhe
- Koln
- Lepizig
- Nunberg
Summary: 10 cruisers
In fact now it's still missing one in ToF - Emden

2 CA, 6 CL = 8 Cruisers, + 2 PB = 10

OK.

22 DDs, 62 SSs

Only 45 SSs were operational, 12 were training boats or still undergoing trials ("The U-Boat Offensive 1914-45" V. E. Tarrant)_

quote:

ORIGINAL: Severian

That's the best I have at the moment.

Phil

(in reply to Severian)

Post #: 76

RE: RAF is too vulnerable - 12/29/2011 4:26:56 PM

Razz1

Posts: 2560
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline

Thanks, Severian.

@aspqrz

I don't know if we want to open a separate thread for History or keep it here. I'm glad Severian is here because we challenged each other concerning OOB.

I know for Fall Gelb, I checked every British ship against two historical archives, sometimes three. I think I also checked 1939 Grand campaign too.
We removed ships that were in the Pacific. However, we have different views on ships that started in the UK but served in the Pacific. This includes new ships that arrive later in the game. Then we came up with some settings where we could give the player an option. Pay PP to keep in the Atlantic or let her be commissioned for the British Pacific Fleet. This also goes for starting ships in 1939 that later were sent to serve in the Pacific. At correct time you would have the option to let the ship be removed from the map or pay PP to keep her. We never fully implemented that option.

Your guess for DD's is good, as it is used to assign strength to a group of ships. I believe the magic number was 4, for 4 escorts in a group which equals full strength. For example a CA with 4 DD's is 5/5 strength, 2 DD's = 2/5 strength.

For historical accuracy I have a patch I am re-writing for OOB. It assigns the starting ships to the correct class. When complete it will be submitted for approval. If not accepted it will be offered as a Mod. For example the OOB was set up before we implemented additional ship types. So many of the ships now should be classified as CL's with different strengths. The place where we differ on opinion is how to assign the strength to carriers. Concerning game play and experience I have a different view.

For aircraft, we have to dig allot harder. We are concerned with operational aircraft. This is where you will see some differences in number of aircraft available. Then after game play, adjustments had to be made, so again we will see some differences in aircraft available.

For France I agree. I believe I added another bomber and fighter group in my Mod. The Italians are a different set up too.

Concerning game mechanics and WW2, Germany bombed London and several cities. The only way to implement that is to use strategic bombers in Germany. Remember the distance is very short. ME-111's, ME-110's, Ju-88's were used to drop bombs. While technically you may not consider them in the same class as a 4 engine B-17 or B-29, they served the same purpose, destruction of cities, industry, etc... In fact there are a few games that represent BOB and the bombing of the UK. Since Tac bombers can not bomb cities, we use some of the German ME-111's etc to represent strategic bombers. Again this is a good compromise as we did not want to make a too detailed game where it takes an hour or more for each turn.

(in reply to Severian)

Post #: 77

RE: RAF is too vulnerable - 12/29/2011 4:36:22 PM

Razz1

Posts: 2560
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline

I'm sorry, I meant look at it this way. Using the option of NO Sea Lion.

Using that option and playing the game you will see that BOB is very tough.
I did not mean there would never be that option of Sea Lion.
Sea Lion is a different subject and yes, the AI rebuilds the air force quickly.

In your case scenario you jumped the gun and implemented Sea Lion before its historical time. (??)
Plus as mentioned I never liked how easy it was to do it. I'm refraining from discussing Sea Lion as it has already been looked at and some adjustments have been made. Are they good enough? Well again that is someones opinion. So I tried to stay on the other subject that was brought up in this thread. BOB in the context of No Sea Lion.

It's easy to misunderstand people and convey the wrong information on the internet as communication zooms right past each other.

Edit: Before we discuss BOB and Sea Lion, I think it is best to test it out with the new patches before we take sides on whether it works well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz
You forgot the most important part of my post.
All of this is in context of no Operation Sea Lion.

I don't agree with "No Sea Lion"as a ground rule... why does the game map cover the UK if not to allow a chance to successfully invade?

IMHO if the Germans don't believe that they have chance to win Sealion and the British don't believe that they have a chance to lose Sealion then you are not refighting WWII. I think most of us Monday morning quarterbacks agree that it wasn't going to work but no-one knew that at the time (except maybe the planning staff at the Kriegsmarine). If you are thinking of bringing out a patch that makes Sealion absolutely impossible them please notify me in advance because I won't install it! Sure, make it more difficult for the Germans but give me a fighting chance to pull it off. Let's keep everybody guessing, just like in 1940.

BTW I don't think pounding a RAF squadron to destruction is gaming the system - I'd say it's just common sense!

< Message edited by Razz -- 12/29/2011 4:40:48 PM >

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 78

RE: RAF is too vulnerable - 12/29/2011 4:45:06 PM

Severian

Posts: 111
Joined: 7/27/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Orders-of-Battle/Fleets-September-1939.htm

Cites 15 BB/BC total, but only 7 in the Home Fleet, 2 in Home Waters and 3 in Alexandria

Doesn't indicate where the other three are, and doesn't give names of ships.

That's far better source, Leo Niehorster:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/000oob.htm

quote:

Another oopsie ...

113 Modern DD
68 Old DD

181 total

Ok, but we had no data about destroyers escort and other conversions. Niehorster OoB of Royal Navy listed 158 DD's overall +11 RAN & RCN. And every source says diffrent things, so i.e. I can check this using this site:
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/sailship.htm

quote:

However, source indicates ...

17 with Home Fleet, 9 with North Atlantic Command, 65 in Home Waters, 31 (+4 Escorts) in Alex.

In fact 18 with Home Fleet. HMS Sabre in Fleet Target Unit seems missing, but I had no idea about his operationality. He probably was only torpedo boat's target.

quote:

7 CA, 12 CL = 19 Cruisers, total

10 Med, 3 Atlantic (again, I suspect it may not include North Africa)

Pluton and Emil Bertin maybe included, but they were cruisers-minelayers. Duguay-Trouin, Primauquet, Jeanne d'Arc and La Tour d'Auvergne were in Dakar, Senegal. Suffren and Lamotte Picquett were in Saigon, Indochina. So it left for us listed before forces.

quote:

Source, 2 BB, 2 Old BB, 3 PB

So, should be 4 BB, with the 2 Old BB being TL1, presumably, or reduced strength.

So they are weaker than other ships. Their max strenght is 4 points, Deutschland class heavy cruisers had 5, Scharnhorst class fast battleships 6. I can reconsider max strength of old pre-dreadnoughts to 3 points.

_____________________________

War, war never changes... but are you sure? Bitter Glory

Put an apple in your mouth, we'll play Wilhelm Tell - "Hawkeye" Pierce to Frank Burns

(in reply to aspqrz02)

Post #: 79

RE: RAF is too vulnerable - 12/29/2011 4:47:45 PM

Razz1

Posts: 2560
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline

@aspqrz

For sources, I used actual ship logs and Naval records among others like government sites, even written biographies by crew members.
Ship manifests.

I believe Total war is not as good a resource.

(in reply to Razz1)

Post #: 80

RE: RAF is too vulnerable - 12/29/2011 4:52:39 PM

Razz1

Posts: 2560
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline

http://www.naval-history.net/

Unfortunately you have to read the whole history on many ships to determine where and when they should be in the game.

(in reply to Razz1)

Post #: 81

RE: RAF is too vulnerable - 12/29/2011 5:06:47 PM

Severian

Posts: 111
Joined: 7/27/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline

Thanks Razz :)

_____________________________

War, war never changes... but are you sure? Bitter Glory

Put an apple in your mouth, we'll play Wilhelm Tell - "Hawkeye" Pierce to Frank Burns

(in reply to Razz1)

Post #: 82

RE: RAF is too vulnerable - 12/29/2011 6:11:34 PM

aspqrz02

Posts: 1024
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz

@aspqrz

For sources, I used actual ship logs and Naval records among others like government sites, even written biographies by crew members.
Ship manifests.

I believe Total war is not as good a resource.

Indeed it is not.

I *used* to have an excellent book titled something liken "Navies of WW2" which I thought I couldn't find, but just did!

According to it, RN strength in 1939 (no deployments) -

15 BB (2 Nelsons [1927], Hood [1920], 2 Renown [1916/36-39], 5 Queen Elizabeth [1933-38])
6 CV (Ark Royal [1938], 2 Courageous [1917/1930], 1 Furious [1917/1925], 1 Eagle [converted 1924], Hermes [1924])
15 CA (2 Exeters [1930-31], 13 Countys [1928-30 ... inc 2 RAN])
40 CL (2 Edinburgh [1939], 8 Southamptons [1937-39], 4 Arethusas [1935-37], 3 Mod Leanders [1935-36, all RAN], 5 Leanders [1933-36, 2 RNZN], 2 Emeralds [1926], 3 Effinghams [191-25, 1 mod 1938], 8 Despatches [1918-22], 2 Capetowns [1917-1918, scheduled for conversion to CLAA, but not started], 3 Caledons [1917])
6 CLAA (6 C Class [1917-19/1936-39])
1 CM (Adventure [1927])
113 Modern DD (All 1927-39)
68 Old DD (All 1916-24) + 11 in hand for conversion to DE, but not started
47 Modern SS (All 1927-39)
12 Old SS (All 1918-19)
54 DE (All 1929-39, 4 RAN, 2 RInN)
42 Fleet Minesweepers (all 1929-39)
2 Monitors
2 Netlayers

Under construction (and should be in the production pipeline, as they have been paid for!)

9 BB
6 CV
8 CL
16 CLAA (see notes above)
4 CM
24 DD
12 SS
80 DE
10 Fleet Minesweepers

Regia Marina (June 1940)

6 BB (2 Cavour, 2 Littorio [both completed in August], 2 Doria [1 actually completed in July 1940])
7 CA (3 Trento, 4 Zara [all 1925-33])
12 CL (4 Da Barbiano, 2 Montecuccoli, 2 Cadorna, 2 Aosta, 2 Garibaldi [all 1928-37])
3 Old Cruisers (San Giorio, Taranto, Bari [all 1905-1914])
54 Modern DD (2 Sella, 4 Sauro, 8 Turbine, 12 Navigatori, 4 Oriani, 12 Alpino, 4 Dardo, 4 Folgore, 4 Grecale [all 1921-39])
5 Old DD (ex Scouts: 2 Mirabella, 3 Leone [all 1914-24])
63 Light Destroyers (Torpedo Boats: 1 Audace, 7 Pilo, 4 Sirtori, 4 Curtatone, 7 La Masa, 4 Palestra, 6 Generali [all 1913-24]; 30 Spica [all 1934-39])
122 Submarines (lots of classes, 6 *nearly* completed, all 1925-40)
7 Old SS (5 H Class, 2 X2 Class [laid up September])

New construction underway -

2 BB
12 CL
5 DD
17 SS

Marine Republique (1939)

8 BB (3 Courbet, 2 Dunkerque, 3 Bretagne)
1 CV (1927)
7 CA (2 Duquesne, 1 Algerie, 4 Suffren)
12 CL ()3 Duguay Trouin, 1 La Tour d'Auvergne (actual CLM), 1 Jeanne d'Arc (Training Ship), 1 Emil Bertin, 6 La Galissoniere)
78 DD (6 Chacal, 18 Bison, 6 Fantasque, 2 Mogador, 26 Bourrasque, 8 Le Hardi, 12 La Flore)
75 SS (9 Requin, 8 Ariane, 29 Acheron, 6 Saphir, 1 Surcouf, 22 Amazone)
63 Sloops/DE (33 WWI builds, 11 Bougainville, 13 Elan, 12 Chamois, 4 Flower Class)

Building (paid for) ...

4 BB (Richelieus)
2 CV
1 CA
3 CL
27 DD
38 SS
30 Sloops/Escorts

Kriegsmarine (1939)
2 BB (Scharnhorst [1939])
5 CA (1 Deutschland [1933], 2 Admiral Scheer [1934-36], 2 Admiral Hipper [1939])
6 CL (1 Emden [1925], 3 Konigsberg [1929-30], 1 Leipzig [1931], 1 Nurnberg [19356])
22 DD (16 Lebeerecht Maass [1937-39], 6 Dieter von Roeder [1938-39])
20 Small DD (Torpedo Boats: 6 Mowe [1926-29], 6 Wolf [1928-29], 8 T1 [1939])
59 SS (Assorted)

Building ...

2 BB laid down (9 Cancelled)
3 CA (1 completed, 1 sold incomplete to USSR, 1 never completed - all laid down)
3 CL laid down (+3 planned. ALL cancelled)
12 DD (Laid down)
13 Small DD
50 SS

I presume that the various nations get a chance to cancel the various new builds they have coming online?

And, I guess, there should be a mechanism for players to cancel Naval Builds at some point during the process, and get back some of the points spent. But that's probably too hard to implement.

Phil

For Submarines, the book I cited is probably one of the best sources available and I know where *it* is, anyway

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Razz1)

Post #: 83

RE: RAF is too vulnerable - 12/29/2011 6:42:20 PM

Severian

Posts: 111
Joined: 7/27/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

6 CV (Ark Royal [1938], 2 Courageous [1917/1930], 1 Furious [1917/1925], 1 Eagle [converted 1924], Hermes [1924])

HMS Argus is missing.

quote:

Under construction (and should be in the production pipeline, as they have been paid for!)

9 BB

Whole Lion-class battleships were cancelled during war.
HMS Lion - started 04.07.1939, suspended in October 1939, cancelled in 1944
HMS Temeraire - started 01.06.1939, suspended in October 1939, cancelled in 1944
HMS Conqueror - never started
HMS Thunderer - never started

Only one battleship has been done - HMS Vanquard. About 4 other BB's never heard before.

quote:

8 BB (3 Courbet, 2 Dunkerque, 3 Bretagne)

3rd Courbet-class battleship, Ocean (ex-Jean Bart) has been disarmed and hulked in 1936.

quote:

Building (paid for) ...

4 BB (Richelieus)

Gascogne never started. Clemenceau's hull sink bombed in 1944.

quote:

I *used* to have an excellent book titled something liken "Navies of WW2" which I thought I couldn't find, but just did!

I had "Jane's Fightning Ships of World War II", but even there some things are missing ;)

< Message edited by Severian -- 12/29/2011 6:43:14 PM >

_____________________________

War, war never changes... but are you sure? Bitter Glory

Put an apple in your mouth, we'll play Wilhelm Tell - "Hawkeye" Pierce to Frank Burns

(in reply to aspqrz02)

Post #: 84

RE: RAF is too vulnerable - 12/30/2011 1:42:45 AM

aspqrz02

Posts: 1024
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Severian

I had "Jane's Fightning Ships of World War II", but even there some things are missing ;)

Yes, I have it as well, but it is useless unless you wish to read each *single* entry to see when the ship was ordered/launched/operational/modified/lost ... and the version I have (a modern copy of the Postwar edition, as it has ships finished up until the late 1940's., which is, I presume, the one you have as well) doesn't cover some things that, offhand, I know are correct/incorrect.

The only thing I can currently be 100% certain of is the number of operational German U-Boats in 1939 and the number being used for training.

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Severian)

Post #: 85