1939 Naval Option Scenarios

[JerseyJohn]

A number of earlier Forums have brought attention to the automatic killing of the two German Subs operating in the North Atlantic at the start of the 1939 Scenario.

Another Forum discussed the possibility of altering the starting situation of game scenarios either randomly or to suit a particular player’s preferences. In that Forum Bill Macon pointed out we already have much of that ability by using the scenario editor.

So, combining these two ideas, I’m submitting my Surface Fleet Variant which I’m incorporating in both, the original game 1939 Fall Weis scenario and Bill Macon’s 1939 MOD with it’s latest proposed improvements. This is not intended to supplant either but to present an additional option.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

During the late thirties Germany planned and was constructing an expanded surface fleet capable of fighting the Royal Navy on equal terms. Two battlecruisers, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (sister ships) were constructed. A pair of aircraft carriers, the Graf Zeppelin and Peter Strasser were launched (also sister ships) with two first class battleships, Bismarck and Tirpitz (again sister ships) following close at hand. As war approached Hitler shifted gears and switched to U-boat production. The carriers were never completed and the battleship program was delayed till after the fall of France.

VARIANT DETAILS

The Axis player has the option of not going with the submarine program. Instead he spends 1938 and 1939 proceeding with his surface ship program at the expense of U-boat production; limiting their number to a Baltic Sea squadron augmenting the regular fleet.

CHANGES TO GERMAN O.B.

The two Atlantic U-boat pieces are deleted. Two unfinished aircraft carriers, each at 3 strength points, are placed in the Baltic Sea. A partially completed BB, Bismarck at 2 strength points, is placed at Kiel [already present in Bill's '39Mod] and another BB, the Tirpitz, also at 2 stregnth points, is placed in the Baltic. [These levels have been increased slightly as detailed in the later posting.]

The Germans gain no immediate advantage as none of the ships are ready for battle. It is a matter of exchanging the generally useless submarines which, against human opponents, are invariably hunted down and sunk, for a small number of capital ships to be completed later in the game. In MPP terms it’s a fair trade.

left click here for Photo of German BB Admiral Tirpitz

Images below in URL of the Graf Zeppelin class fleet aircraft carriers - The nearly identical Peter Strasser .

left click here for Pre-war Photo of the Launched Graf Zeppelin

left clidk here for Drawing of completed Aircraft Carrier

The German Aircraft Carriers background information provided by JayJay_H in an earlier Forum.

"On November 16, 1935, Deutsche Werke Kiel AG was awarded the contract for the first carrier which was given the construction designation "A". Design director for Germany's first carrier was Naval Chief Architect Dipl. Ing. Wilhelm Hadeler.

Work on what would be later named Graf Zeppelin began only in December 1936 because the shipyard's spliways were full to capacity with battlecruiser Gneisenau, cruiser Blucher, four destroyers (Z1-4), four submarines (U13-16) and supply ship Franken. Graf Zeppelin was launched on December 8, 1938.

When WWII broke out in September 1939, the carrier was 85% complete. Works however would be soon delayed and then halted in order to build badly needed submarines which had proved to be the most effective asset in the hands of the Kriegsmarine. Towed to Gotenhafen first and then to Stettin, the carrier was deprived of her 15cm guns (became coastal batteries in Norway) and used as a floating warehouse.

On May 13, 1942 Hitler ordered the carrier completed and the Zeppelin was towed back to Kiel where works resumed seven months later.

At war's end the carriers were still unfinished.

----- * -----

After several exchanges of view points and information, the following scenario has also evolved -- brought up from a later posting in this topic, listed here for convenience.

Revised Naval Scenario -- (copied from posting further down same topic.)

Taking the feedback into consideration I came to the conclusion that the subs ought to stay but started naval construction ought to also be represented, so I've redrawn it as follows:

Germany

1) Keeps her three subs and they are full strength.

2) Partially finished capital ships added as follows: Kiel, BB Bismarck @2 pts, Baltic Sea hexes, BB Tirpitz @2 pts, AC Graf Zeppelin @2 pts and AC Peter Strasser @2 pts.

Britain

1) Full stregnth sub added in Malta Port.

2) BB King George V in London @4 pts, BB Duke of York in Edinburgh @ 2 pts, BB Prince of Wales in Liverpool @ 2 pts.

I think this represents things accurately, maintains the original strategy, and adds historical units that were under construction at the time and make the game more interesting.

Comments, either favorable or critical are

welcome as postings in this Forum.

===== * =====

I'll gladly E-mail either version of the scenario, via a zip file, to anyone making a posting either pro or con in this Forum. Please specify that you'd like a copy or contact me at my own E-mail address in the envelope above.

[ January 20, 2003, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

Not that Germany wasn't capable of completing these ships, however battleships were a huge undertaking. Aircraft Carriers even massive!

You'd have to take into consideration that any smart Allied player would merely storm the Baltic and sink her entire fleet in moments. So in that case you need to make these have strength units. As well as remove a Luftwaffe fighter to outfight the carrier born aircraft, and give the Allies some sort of evening odds. As well as disbanding the current u-boat in the baltic sea. That making all things even I believe...

In a recent game of mine I built 2 u-boats for deployment after fall of France. Ewww Lord, what a waste. I really could've used a HQs and another army instead!

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

Good points.

Storming the Baltic isn't an easy task; there's only one Hex to move through and the Germans already have a U-boat and two full strength cruisers to defend it with, along with the three Luftflottes.

Removing one of the Luftflottes would be excessive. We're talking about 40 aircraft per vessel. The original idea was for 2/3 ME 109s and 1/3 JU 87s, later reversed.

The aircraft would have been manufactured seperatly as part of the naval program and is already incorporated in the MPP cost. Goering had nothing to do with it and his constant opposition was one of the reasons the ships were never built. He wanted to personally head any German program involving aircraft, but the navy succeeded in establishing it's own pilot training program. During the war it was limited to commisioning personnel for observation aircraft but would have been easily adapted to other purposes.

The undertaking was not as great as stated; the point is Germany could not build the U-boats and surface ships simultaneously, so she chose the U-boats. It could just as easily have gone the other way. The ships were already begun and the two Battleships completed within two years along with the heavy (8" gun) cruisers Prinz Eugen, Blucher, Seydlitz and Hipper.

By all rights the ships ought to be upped to about half strength as they wouldn't have been competing with the sub-program. I'm keeping them well short of that so they won't be of any immediate use, such as carrier aircraft against the Poles. Making them a little stronger will discourage the Baltic rush option you describe as they can be easily made battleworthy.

=== * ===

Updated Scenarios: The two Carriers have three strength points each, the two BBs have two a piece.

[ January 19, 2003, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Guinty]

nice idea,only thing is that if u increase the carriers strength after the fall of france would sealion not be fairly easy to perform?

[JerseyJohn]

The British home fleet would be much more powerful than the increased German Baltic fleet and should still be able to prevent or seriously hinder Sea Lion. The main effect would be in forcing the Allied player to be more careful of his UK naval losses.

The stronger German surface fleet would also induce Allied players to leave more ships near the North Sea, guarding Britain, instead of sending them to the Mediteranean to (unrealistically) sink the Italian fleet as Italy enters the war.

Invading Nowray and Sweeden would be easier with the two carriers, along with fighting the Soviets. All these considerations would have been part of Germany's decision to contest local naval dominance instead of attempting to starve Britain into submission.

In the game I would always opt for the surface fleet option because, as was mentioned in the opening entry, the two North Atlantic U-boats cannot avoid being hunted down and sunk and generally give nothing in return.

[ January 19, 2003, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[GDS_STARFURY]

On the other hand you could make the 2 North Atlantic subs full strength with 12 points as per this campaigns staring research level. 12 points lets them have a much better chance at surviving an attack and also gives the option of actually attacking the allied navy thats hunting you down. The allies would need no less then 5 to 6 ships to assure a kill and this can leave the allied player open to a aggresive Axis use or thier Baltic navy.

[Hueristic]

First of all Great Mod Idea. This is a Mod in it's own right as it not only changes history it Changes the play of the game. I see the 2 original subs as being there to "occupy" the ally navy for a few important turns. Removeing them will only let the allied player have Cont Blance (Spelling?) in the atlantic/straight. Not to mention the fact i've had a few last over a month against me(What a pain it the ars!) And I've had one live to well into 42 (Ol' SuperSub). OK with that said lets do the math, For it is generally held that axis has the advantage to begin with let us not gift them a unsurmountable advantage. AS you have Stated the baltic is one great Defensive Position. Clearly these ships will become a factor not only in supporting a sealion but in repelling an invasion, which i believe is a nessesary ally move to win(correct me if i'm wrong here ).

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

CHANGES TO GERMAN O.B.

The two Atlantic U-boat pieces are deleted.

325*2=650

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Two unfinished aircraft carriers, each at 3 strength points,

700/10=70 mpp per strength point times amount units

original cost - lowered strength

(700)-((10-3)*70)*2=420

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Bismarck at 2 strength points, is placed at Kiel [already present in Bill's '39Mod] and another BB, the Tirpitz, also at 2 stregnth points, is placed in the Baltic.

(600)-((10-2)*60)*2=240

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

In MPP terms it’s a fair trade.

650-(240+420)= -10 AXIs gain 10 mpp

But what bothers me is these assests get moved to a fortified location. I believe this could never be a balanced scenerio. But a great MOD i'm sure. I would leave one sub in the N.A. just to force the allies to search and destry. And i would place these(unfinished units at stregth "1" I think that would more accurately depict thier "Unfinished" State. And would also Cause the Axis player to have to "protect these assets while they are in the rebuild stage. a size 3 AC in a port can defend it's self and would actually help in any attack the allies Launched to destroy these pieces. as it stands now the axis can build them up 1 point a turn and not have to worry about protecting them as the Baltic is soo defensive.

But in closeing. I will Play test this as any Mod ur working on. I'm enjoying the one we have going right now.

[Hueristic]

I just had an idea. I don't know the mpp count and don't feel like doing the math now but what about this.

2 AC

2 BB

? Subs

ALL size 1 take the mpp count and get as many size 1 subs after u place the AC and BB's and scatter them in the N.A. Then the allies will still have to hunt these packs. and if it comes out to like 5 or so if they all attack one BB they can still sink it!

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

I am in the process of creating a scenario entitled "Our Little Admiral" based of the alternate history in the book Third Reich Victorious

What is Hitler joined the High seas fleet instead of the army.

In short, the war begins with a German surprise attack on Scapa Flow. (Using carriers)

CvM

[Liam]

Hueristic? Great Advantage for the Axis???

With your strategy of declaring War on the LowLands and building an HQ for France and redeploying all British Air to the Coast of Britian...then declaring War on France and using French/British ships to down the entire fleet completely chokes the Axis from expanding in the Mediterrean. Also halts him up in taking Paris till late in 1940 if at all. If the Allied players should so overly dedicate himself to an early offensive War then he should pay the consequences of early vulnerability..

Otherwise the Royal Navy is more than formidable for anything the Axis can offer up. What you would require is a tweak on the Russian front instead... That's where the Allies really suffer...

Perhaps 1 HQ and an extra 500 MPPs...

Otherwise I'm forced into a Sea Lion with a player like you, and that doesn't always work. If you want to spread yourself so thin I'd love the extra German Fleet to destroy Britian with. Germany would have definitely altered history if she thought Britian would virtually abandon her Island...

[Liam]

Lowlands = France

EGADS! I use to be a speller and had a great memory! Don't ever smoke pot kids or drink...You'll have no brain cells by age 26

[JerseyJohn]

Gds--Hueristic--CvM

Thanks for the feedback, all very interesting.

I agree that the basic premise does alter the game and that's the idea.

Hueristic makes a number of good points, especially about the role of those two U-boats in occupying the British for a few turns at the start of the game. Gds -- also has an idea about just making those subs full stregnth -- incidentally I believe, at least in Hubert's '39 scenario, that the subs would be 11 (L=1) points and it might be that Bill's makes them L=2s (12 points )and better diving capability to increase their survival chances.

In reality the carriers were launched and sitting in the water as hulls before '39, which is pretty much what they remained in '45. I believe the battleships Bismark and Tirpitz were launched in 1940 and both completed in 41, which would be very fast construction for battleships, and they were very high quality ships, so they were probably also launched by '39 and not accepted into the Fleet till 40; I don't know the exact details though I did a brief search.

During the Second World War, from laying the hull to launch and sea trials and accepting into the fleet, the normal period was three years for a battleship and two for a fleet carrier.

I think Hueristic and Starfury both have significant points about the subs and their role in the game. To reflect this I'd suggest the following changes to the original idea:

Germans Both Atlantic U-boats remain in the game at their starting points and are at full strength (11 in Hubert's and 12 in Macon's). The two carriers and the two BBs are all placed in the Baltic as 1 point units.

UK receives one full stregnth sub unit a few hexes west of Malta and two 1 point BBs in British Harbors representing the Prince of Wales and Duke of York (or KG V if it isn't already in the game) under construction.

These are all units that would have either entered service or been in service by '41. In May 41, when Bismark broke into the Atlantic her sister ship Tirpitz was finishing her Baltic trials and Prince of Wales was so new she went to see with workmen aboard (and a non-functioning aft-turret of 4x14" guns)!

I think this method preserves the original tactics and reflects the naval construction already under way for both sides when the war began.

Hueristic thanks for the good word on the scenarios in general, it's greatly appreciated.

CvM As terrified as Hitler was of the water I can just visualize him as a sailor! Can't you see him in port on maintenance duty with a paint brush in his hand standing on a scaffold doing the hull with some other poor sap and the other guy's got to spend the day not only listening to his political ideas but also a lecture about how he's a great artist "... you're doing it all wrong, here, hold the brush like this, see the way I'm holding it -- imagine we are doing a vast wall mural!"

[ January 19, 2003, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

Jersey John, I can definitely see Hitler as a Sailor ROFL

Although I still feel even if you put the sub blocker in the single hex for the Baltic a determine Ally with penetrate and blow you out of the sea with strength 1 ships... Most of the Loftflottes are busy taking out France & Low countries and don't have time to do much support in the Baltic. You're in a race to get France to fall as fast as possible and that's not possible with your air tied up attacking French ships that will soon be removed and British ships that don't care.

They'll still hunt strength 11 subs down. I think you go either way in this situation, but you can't protect the fleet from a determined Ally. Even if you get 2 or 3 capitol ships it's not a significant loss to them. They can easily replace them with the two new ones you've given them.

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

The Baltic opening would be held by the sub and the two cruisers while the larger ships built up in the ports. I agree that would be a depressing prospect. In such an attack, as the Axis, I'd swing at least one or two airfleets back to help the ships; I'd gladly slow down the French campaign for the chance to sink some British Battleships and perhaps a carrier or two!

I tend to agree with you that the scenario should either go one way or the other and that even full strength subs would be hunted down by the British and French navies.

What I'm trying for is to find which way most players think it should go and set the game in that direction.

In the original version I gave the Germans two full stregnth ACs in exchange for all three U-boats (assuming, had they really go on it, they could have completed both carriers before starting the war and wouldn'd have begun the BB program till after defeating France). The carriers helped defeat the Northern Polish Army and the corps near Danzig. That was okay with me but I thought most players would consider it an unfair advantage for Germany so I tweaked it downwards, adding the BBs and making them all less than 1/3 strength -- much less!

[ January 19, 2003, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Revised Naval Scenario -- also copied to opening entry.

Taking the feedback into consideration I came to the conclusion that the subs ought to stay but started naval construction ought to also be represented, so I've redrawn it as follows:

Germany

1) Keeps her three subs and they are full strength.

2) Partially finished capital ships added as follows: Kiel, BB Bismarck @2 pts, Baltic Sea hexes, BB Tirpitz @2 pts, AC Graf Zeppelin @2 pts and AC Peter Strasser @2 pts.

Britain

1) Full stregnth sub added in Malta Port.

2) BB King George V in London @4 pts, BB Duke of York in Edinburgh @ 2 pts, BB Prince of Wales in Liverpool @ 2 pts.

I think this represents things accurately, maintains the original strategy, and adds historical units that were under construction at the time and make the game more interesting.

As always feedback is welcome and I think the first part of this Forum had a lot of great input and discussion.

[ January 20, 2003, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Guinty]

where can i dl the Revised Naval Scenario from m8?

[Jeff Gilbert]

Although I find this a very interesting mod, I have only one real reservation at this time.

I can see where the Germans will get the MMPs to finish the shipping under construction however, the Brits will be just hanging on for years, where would they get the spare MMPs to finish their shipping?

I think this mod would probably add even more of an advantage for the Axis.

Just my 2 cents worth ...

[Kuniworth]

Jersey; Didnt have time to read all the stuff but I hope you realise that this chnage would make Britain extremley weak.

[Liam]

It would make Britian Extremely weak if she throws her Capitol ships into harms way right off and cannot afford to fix them. In real history if she would have thrown all her Navy into the battle of France and they were all damaged beyond repair what would have been the outcome of the War? She can build them up to full strength but she has to be a more conservative nation with MPPs... Similarly if Germany never manages to etch off enough Minors she'll never do much with her ships either... She needs quite an army to take on Russia in '41 and balance on research and keep a Navy that may or may not be used...

This strategy naturally favours a more prudent Allied and German player. One that doesn't throw away everything 6 months and decide the game that early.

[JerseyJohn]

Jeff Gilbert

I game tested it with the AI playing the Allies and it had it's three new battleships up to full strength within a year. As the Germans it took much longer.

Kuniworth,

Can't see how it makes the British extremely weak; it's only giving the Germans what they already had and adding three BBs and a sub to the British OB! The net result has nothing to do with weakening Britain, it creates a German surface fleet that acts as a true threat to help keep the British Home Fleet home! It also enables Germany to dominate the Baltic, which she did in any case.

Liam

I think you summarized the idea perfectly. It still takes hundreds of MPPs for either the British or Germans to turn those bare units into effective warships. Neither side does it right away and even if Germany had all of them full strength immediately they wouldn't survive a North Sea battle with the units Britain already has around it's home bases.

I wanted to bring all four ships up to full strength and found it hard because everything else keep getting priority, exactly as happened with Hitler. In one abortive test the last throw of the Polish Air Force was to sink one of the carriers which I hadn't moved far enough from shore!

Guinty

Thanks for the interest. I don't have anywhere to post them but I'll E-mail both versions to you as zip.files. As mentioned earlier, they're identical changes, one applied to Hubert's original scenario and the other to Bill Macon's mod.

[ January 20, 2003, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]