Where is the Destroyers for Bases Deal?

[Panzerkeil]

I am pleased to see such things as the Allies take over Iceland [historical] worked into the game. Also, the Russo-Finnish War and annexation of of the Baltic States. These all happened in real life and the game provides the option for such things to occur, which I think is proper. This sort of thing has been missing from other games I've played on this grand strategic level.

What I would like to see as a selectable option is the 1940 transfer of 50 WWI destroyers from the USN to the RN in exchange for base leases. This would greatly assist in the defence against German U-boats. While this did not win the naval war for them, it did help the British plug a gap until they could get their own ship yards mass producing destroyers. [Please don't tell me this is already modelled in the game.]

Although I have not learned how to use the editor and scripting, I think this could be done. I put this idea out there for consideration.

[Lars]

Interesting idea. Think it would be good as a variable event. Or perhaps tied to US diplo activation level.

Hmm, gotta make the UK pay for them somehow though. Perhaps a one time 1/2 price destroyer buy event with the MPP transferred to the US.

[Panzerkeil]

But the British could not pay for them in cash or gold. That's why Lend-Lease came into being, because the British treasury was tapped out by then. To "pay" for the use of the destroyers, they gave up a non-monetary asset: the right to use Caribbean bases for 99 year leases. It was really a something-for-nothing deal.

I do like your idea of perhaps attaching this event to the American activation level. Another variant would be that if the British do not get these destroyers, then the Americans get to activate them for free as part of their own builds.

However it might be done, one thing is for sure: these ships should come into play at some point.

[Cheese Panzer]

Well, there is the Canadian "Prince Edward" cruiser unit. There was no "Prince Edward" and for all intents the Canadians never operated anything large enough to show up in SC2. But they sailed about 40% of smaller ships used in the Battle of the Atlantic. Perhpas this unit reflects that?

Lend-Lease my foot! Did you see the terrible things they did to the Campbletown? Shocking!

[Lars]

Originally posted by Panzerkiel:

But the British could not pay for them in cash or gold. That's why Lend-Lease came into being, because the British treasury was tapped out by then. To "pay" for the use of the destroyers, they gave up a non-monetary asset: the right to use Caribbean bases for 99 year leases. It was really a something-for-nothing deal.

Bit of a problem there as we don't have the Caribbean.

Tell you what. You give us Gibralter and we'll call it even.

[Panzerkeil]

Cheese Panzer, all the more reason for having destroyer units for ASW. Canada by the end of WW2 had the third largest navy in the world in terms of number of combat vessels. I bet that surprises a lot of people to hear that. Most of them were smaller units best suited to convoy escort duties. We did float a carrier for a while, I think her name was HMCS Bonaventure, can't recall offhand for sure. After the war it was all scrapped and we shrunk back again to an insignificant military weakling.

I still think that aside from this "Prince David" unit the Brits should get some more ASW assets, even if this is made an optional variant. I don't see this as being any more incompatible than the other scripted variants, such as Iceland being occupied by the Allies. After all, we do not actually have them put a unit on a transport/amphib and land it.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Well, I've been toying with creating 4 classes of

surface warships:

CV

BB

But also:

BC: faster than BBs, lower defense, allows the

Germans to use the "fight or run" strategy for their

raiders (if surface raiding is allowed which it

should be).

Hunter-Killer (CL flotilla): CAs would be subsumed

into the BB/CV/BC hierarchy (basically replacing

many of the current CA units with BB/BC). Britain

would start with maybe one of these, as most of

their destroyers at the start of the war operated

with the big guns (and some in convoys see below),

but it wasn't til later that they created independent

sub hunters. Excellent vs. subs, poor vs. the

heavies and little shore bombardment capability.

In return Germans would have 1 less sub than they

start with and a script could be created (?) that

damaged subs on the convoy lanes (1-2 points),

representing convoy escorts getting in their licks.

[Rob Ross]

Originally posted by Panzerkiel:

What I would like to see as a selectable option is the 1940 transfer of 50 WWI destroyers from the USN to the RN in exchange for base leases. This would greatly assist in the defence against German U-boats. While this did not win the naval war for them, it did help the British plug a gap until they could get their own ship yards mass producing destroyers.

Complete and utter crap. You wouldn't be an American by any chance would you?

The 50 clapped out destroyers that arrived in 1941 required extensive refitting, most of them needed new engines for a start. As a result it was not until 1942 that they were in service and then only gradually. Ironically the US was in the war itself by then.

It was a something for nothing deal alright. Churchill summed it up as 'we are being flayed to the bone for almost nothing'. It was just part of the US trend to let Britian fight it's proxy war on its behalf, while ripping it off, and building up it's own war capacity with the proceeds.

Bah. Go and watch U571 for more inspiration.

[Panzerkeil]

Rob Ross, if you carefully read my posts, you'd not be asking such an ignorant question. Let me make it easy for you: I am Canadian.

For whatever they were worth, the Brits were glad to have them. I think taking Churchill quotes literally leads to some confusion.

I was asking for input, not insults. You didn't have to be such an asshole with your post.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Rob Ross:

Complete and utter crap. You wouldn't be an American by any chance would you?

The 50 clapped out destroyers that arrived in 1941 required extensive refitting, most of them needed new engines for a start. As a result it was not until 1942 that they were in service and then only gradually. Ironically the US was in the war itself by then.

It was a something for nothing deal alright. Churchill summed it up as 'we are being flayed to the bone for almost nothing'. It was just part of the US trend to let Britian fight it's proxy war on its behalf, while ripping it off, and building up it's own war capacity with the proceeds.

Bah. Go and watch U571 for more inspiration.

Er, we could have strictly followed the rules of neutrality and given you nothing.

So quit yer bitchin.

[LampCord]

Originally posted by Lars:

Er, we could have strictly followed the rules of neutrality and given you nothing.

So quit yer bitchin. [/QB]

[Rob Ross]

America didn't 'give' anything. It screwed the British and French for evey penny then resorted to a land grab when the money was gone.

If Churchill's words on the matter aren't meant to be taken literally then what are we meant to do with them? Was he having a laugh?

[jon_j_rambo]

Why should we give anything? Work for your own bread. Who cares what Churchill said, why fear him? Rather, fear Him who brings manna from the sky.

-Legend

[Panzerkeil]

The reason I said not to take Churchill literally about everything is that he used a lot of rhetorical language, for added effect. It is all too easy to pull out a quotation to prove a point. There's an obscure reference to him thanking Canada for our troops' presence in Britain after the Dunkirk disaster. I don't think he intended that Canada saved Britain. I could have quoted him on that and then bragged that we saved England, but I would have sounded stupid for doing so. Likewise he said that the only thing that ever really scared him was the U-boat peril. Really? I bet there were more than U-boats that gave him the willies as he tried to sleep each night through that long summer of 1940.

Churchill is at the top of my list of personal heroes, but I don't take everything he says as the gospel.