Naval Command

[Pochenko]

There's a problem with naval command. It's wrong for me not having naval Hq. Of course they shouldn't work like land Hq. I mean, you don't want to take them overseas 'cause that would be ridiculous and very dangerous for them because you never have a "front line" in naval combat. I think they should have a big range of command (like 20 hexes more or less) and they should have to command from land (you'll have to attach them to your naval units manually when they are in port if not they would probably command things you want them to command because of the distance). Like land Hq they would increase readiness but of course they won't give any supply bonus to your ships.

..................................................

[JerseyJohn]

Pochenko

Here's a link to a Golden Oldie on the subject you might find interesting.

< Ideas on HQs plus Admirals >

[ February 18, 2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

Here's the correct link;

Correct Link

And thanks for the article JerseyJohn, it was interesting rereading that ancient post.

At a "simpler" level I would like to see each nation being able to select an Admiral with a preferred strategy for naval warfare / production ;

1. Control the Seas Proponent - 10% reduction in the cost of Battleships and Cruisers and a 10% increase in the cost of Carriers

2. Submarine Warfare Proponent - 10% reduction in the cost of subs and a 10% increase in the cost of Battleships and Cruisers

3. Naval Air Proponent - 10% reduction in the cost of Carriers and a 10% increase in the cost of Battleships and Cruisers

4. Merchant Marine Proponent - +1 Naval Defense for Transports and lower cost of transporting units and a 10% higher cost for Subs.

5. Shore Bombardment Fanatic - 20% Decrease in cost of Battleships, 10% increase in cost of Cruisers, Carriers and Subs and Transports.

6. Submarine Warfare Fanatic - 20% decrease in cost of Subs, 10% increase in cost of Battleships, Cruisers, and Carriers and Transports.

7. Air Warfare Fanatic - 20% decrease in the cost of Carriers, 10% increase in the cost of Battleships, Cruisers and Subs and Transports.

8. Cruiser Fanatic - 20% decrease in the cost of cruisers, 10% increase in the cost of Battleships, Carriers and Subs and Transports.

9. Bureaucrat - No Preference

Naturally once selected you should only be able to change your Admiral in Chief by paying 250 MPP to retool your production yards.

[ February 18, 2004, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Bromley]

See if this one works.

Sorry, called away mid post .

[ February 18, 2004, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Bromley ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin & Bromley (it works )

Thanks for fixing the link, it's from a group of old ones I posted in Hubert's FAQ Thread some time back.

Glad you guys found it interesting. Oddly the admiral idea doesn't come up too often.

Interesting ideas Edwin, will need to look at them more closely before venturing opinions.

[ February 18, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn,

Waiting to read your analysis.

And I amended my idea to include:

You can appoint a new Admiral in Chief by paying 250 MPP to retool your naval yards.

Each naval strategy would be linked to a picture of a Historical Admiral that embraced that strategy

Only the US, UK, and Germany would have access to all the Naval Strategies. The USSR,Italy and France would have a more limited set of options (Admirals).

The Reports screen would have a tab for commanding Admirals that would display portraits of the Admirals in charge of each Navy.

Pop-up Event if Admiral is Replaced - Major News Item

In summary; a system to allow players to alter the cost of production for Naval Units by adopting different production strategies

[ February 18, 2004, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[mark248]

i dont know if i saw this here but -

wat about lowering the cost of ships MORE, or increasing production, and forming task forces and task groups, with an admiral in command?

like if u wanted an american carrier task force, ud put admiral halsey in command

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

I can't see any problems with this system except, perhaps instead of cost the difference should be in quality. Which brings us back to the old Red and Grays issue. The truth is different armies, navies and air forces had destinctly different characteristics other than those reflected in research levels.

I've never really liked the system used because it doesn't reflect things properly. In the armies, for example, the Germans should move more quickly than the Soviets, but the soviets should be less dependant upon their supply lines -- of course both would need a link, but the Soviets can be supplied through a system of horse pulled wagons where the Germans need a more sophisticated method. This would more accurately reflect national differences, but in the game the only difference is research tech level -- a distortion to make it all uniform.

In the Navies Germany should have an edge in electronics and speed as it's capital ships were newer, but Britain has the edge in big guns, though it's electronics are not as up to date and perhaps her ships not as well armored as their German counterparts. And so on down the line -- but we don't have that, everything is uniform.

The modern Bismark is the same value as the antiquated Queen Elizabeth.

Making this more difficult to evaluate is the fact that Britain was in the process of actually turning out three new classes of BBs to replace the old Barhams. Germany had it's Hindenburg class on the drawing boards, but none of them ever hit the waves. Aside from which they had inherant flaws, such as the poorly protected rudder inherited from Bismarck and Tirpitz, that hadn't been corrected. Would a Grossadmiral other than Raeder have changed such problems, or whould have also knucked under to Hitler's interventions?

Naturally we don't want to pose these specific problems to the players, we want everything in more general terms but they should still maintain the stregnths and weaknesses of that country's military.

Thinking in the present game system doesn't leave us many choices, it's either cost of tech level but the Reds and the Grays none the less.

I like your concept, allowing each nation to select where it will place it's individual emphasis, I just wish it had a more nation specific system to be applied to.

The Admiral in chief concept could just as easily be applied to army and air force.

Germany would have it's Guderian in his 1943 role of decide on new panzer production. On the down side it would also be saddled with Milch and Goering accepting bribes and favors from their aircraft producing buddies instead of making an honest appraisal of what their branch really needed.

The United States would have Hap Armold directing it's massive Air Force needs, Admiral King for the Navy and General Marshall making comparable decisions for the Army -- such as whether to go for tens of thousands of Shermans, or a much smaller number of technically superior tanks that were never developed.

[JerseyJohn]

Mark248

The naval counters already do represent task groups. Historically this isn't always accurate -- especially for the Germans who had a poor doctrine and often sent big ships to sea without the cover of either light cruisers or heavy destroyers, a mistake they paid for with the loss of Bismarck, Graf Spee and later the Scharnhorst, whose captain actually detached his own escording destroyers!

Sending the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen out together was not the same as having a destroyer screen. In the Pacific the United States and Japan used much deeper tactics in this regard, and it's a much larger ocean, so the argument about destroyers not being oceanworthy to accompany capital ships is nonsensical.

[Edwin P.]

Dear JerseyJohn,

I like your analysis and my concept was perhaps too much guided by SC1 and not the new units characteristics in SC2 (HC alluded to more country specific units for SC2 in an earlier post).

Your expansion of this idea to the Air and Army is great. For it allows players to experiment with different military philisophies without requiring a constant return to the editor.

Then I could see on one screen three columns with one for the Army, Navy and Air Commanders for each country. Just changing these selections (portraits) would change the game by altering the cost and or abilities of specific unit types. It would also provide a limited amount of intelligence on your strategies to your opponent.

Example (per JerseyJohn):

Country - Army - Navy - Air

US - General Marshall, Admiral King, Hap Arnold

Germany - Guderian, Milch, Goring

Etc....

Many thanks for your comments.

Now awaiting a hint from HC on his view.

[ February 18, 2004, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Dear EdwinP,

Delighted to have been of assistance. Like that three screen idea -- a great touch, simulates a Secretary of War position.

Here's hoping ...

JJ,

[Edwin P.]

Add to the list:

10. Surface Warfare Training Fanatic - 10% combat readiness bonus to Battleships and Cruisers. Battleships and Cruisers cost 5% More.

11. Submarine Warfare Training Fanatic - 20% Diving Bonus to Submarines. Submarines cost 10% more due to increased expenditures on crew training.

12. Ship Armor Fanatic - +1 Naval Defense for Battleships and Cruisers, -1 Action Point (ie movement range is reduced by 1) for Battleships and Cruisers

Such a list of 12+ choices for a Nation's Chief of the Navy adds variety to the standard 1939/1940 scenario without additional complexity.

The default option would be an Admiral with no prefences and a player could easily go to the Military Commanders screen to select an Admiral that will change the costs and/or statistics of his nation's naval units. They could change Admirals at any time for a cost of 250MPP (reflecting the cost of retooling navy yards or implementing new training systems)

As JerseyJohn suggested a similar list of Generals could be created for the Army and Air Forces that could be accessed from the same screen.

[ February 19, 2004, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]