ev Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 At the beginning of WWII Germany had two old battleships, two new battleships and three pocket battleships. Yet, in SOE Germany starts with no battleships. The older battleships were the Schlesien and the Schleswig-Holstein. These were outdated... The newer battleships were the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau. These were new, combat ready battleships. The three pocket battleships were the Lutzou, Admiral Graf Spee, and, Admiral Schere. Germany also had three heavy cruisers and six light cruisers. All available as of 1939. SOE gives the Germans no battleships as of the start of the war. Why? SOE gives the British 6 Battleship units at the start of the game. As of 1939, England had 12 battleships in the N. Atlantic and Mediterranean area of operations. So, it would seem each SOE battleship unit represents 2 battleships. Shouldn't Germany get one or two battleship units at the start of the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 The new battle ships were battle cruisers with 11" guns and not as good armorment The old BBs were just that, too old. Only the Bismark and Tripitz were real BBs the rest were BCs or CAs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyazinth von Strachwitz Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Agreed to Al. All of the ships ev mentioned are classified as Heavy Cruisers. ev, I can really understand your point. In my eyes the reason why Hubert did this is game balancing.. Germany never had the chance to fight the Royal Navy, and this should be represented in the game. When I play the Axis vs. the AI, usually the RN is on the bottom of the sea in 1942. Apart from this: pls keep in mind that a unit in SC represents a battle group of ships, so one icon in the game doesn`t mean one ship, it means a group of ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev Posted September 14, 2011 Author Share Posted September 14, 2011 Thank you for your responses. I am still a bit troubled... Take the Italian Navy. Italy had 7 battleships at the start of the war. Some were old, some were not quite as good, etc. Still Italy gets 4 battleship units in SOE (i.e. one unit for every two battleships). Likewise, England had 12 battleships in the Atlantic-Mediterranean-European area of operations. Some were older, some were newer, etc. And, of course, England gets 6 battleship units in SOE - one unit for every two battleships. But, Germany had 2 old and 2 new battleships and it gets 0 battleship units. Now, I understand a battleship unit does not stand for a single battleship. But if England and Italy each get one unit for every two battleships, shouldn't Germany also get one unit for every two battleships? Then, of course, there is the problem of balancing the game - as pointed by Big Al. But, there are other ways of balancing the game which would be more accurate from a historical point of view. For example, as of 1939, England had 126 Destroyers (in the European Theater), while Germany only had 22. So England had six time as many destroyers as Germany. Therefore, if Germany starts the game with 2 destroyers units, England should start the game with 12 destroyer units. My point, give Germany at least one battleship, and give more destroyer units to the Brits. Also, maybe, revise the number of cruisers: In real life, England started the war with 28 cruisers (in the European Theater) to Germany's 9 and 3 pocket battleships. A ratio of almost 2.33 to 1. Perhapps Germany could start the war with 1 battleship unit, 2 cruisers, and, 1 destroyer. And, England should start the war with 12 battleships, 5 cruisers, and, 6 destroyer units. Notice this would add a German battleship but would eliminate two German cruisers and one destroyer unit. And it would keep somewhat accurate proportions between the Brithish and German navies... ...Finally, I would run a similar excercise with the French and Italian Navies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 The old battleships were pre-dreadnought battleships, which means that they were already obsolete in WW1. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were lacking the (already ordered) 38 cm guns, which were ment to be installed later. But after the loss of the Bismarck this never happened: these guns were used to secure german occoupied coasts against an allied invasion. Technically Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were BBs, but they were equipped with CA guns (28 cm). The result was that they were not allowed to engage allied battleships, which is understandable when you can't fight on even terms. Nice link about the Hochseeflotte (WW1) and Kriegsmarine (WW2). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev Posted September 14, 2011 Author Share Posted September 14, 2011 Technically Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were BBs, but they were equipped with CA guns (28 cm). The result was that they were not allowed to engage allied battleships, which is understandable when you can't fight on even terms. So, maybe, at the start of the game, the Axis player could be given the option to re-arm the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with larger guns (at some cost). If the German player accepts this option, a script could remove one of the cruiser units Germany has at the start of SOE and replace it with the re-armed battleships a couple of months later. This option would have to occur at the very begining of SOE to insure that the unit is in a German port. Any reactions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Palchinsky Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Other operational level games, such as GRD's Second Front, used fleets to represent many types of ships in order to avoid the bean counting. Isn't this a possible solution for a "strategic" game? Couldn't the aircraft carrier icon be manipulated so that as a fleet it had both surface and air strengths for nations with CVs, and a battleship icon for nations without CVs? The remaining major issue, of course, is strategic submarine warfare and ASW, but I'd look to how AH's Third Reich handled that and come up with something more abstract, but still requires money/units to win. A solution in this regards would likely also lead to an improvement with how strategic bombing is handled in SC. I believe SC is not as strategic in play as it once was in SC1, and maybe a swing back wouldn't hurt from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Palchinsky Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 In retrospect, the "fleet" counters in Second Front are actually called Task Forces (TF), which seem more appropriate for an operational or strategic level game rather than individual classes of warships. There was a WWI mod for SC2 that was done by a French player who used fleet counters, which I thought worked quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk23 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 The new battle ships were battle cruisers with 11" guns and not as good armorment The old BBs were just that, too old. Only the Bismark and Tripitz were real BBs the rest were BCs or CAs Sorry Big Al if you read this I disagree with you here. Answer to first point : I know this is a very old post,but I have been away from the game for a while,and I have just read this and I have to repond to this load of bull,the New German battleships that were Battlecruisers you mean Scharnhorst & Gneisenau with 11" guns that were not a very good armament,well the 11" guns were improved WW1 versions and the same guns did alot of damage during that war just ask the British navy.The reason they did not engage British Battleships in the second world war,was because Hitler forbade it,he did not want them damaged far from a safe harbour,so that he would be without his only large surface units so early in the war,and not because the 11" guns were crap and could not damage a hen house. Second point : I will concede they were old althought modernised between the wars. Third point : In that only Bismarck and Tirpitz were real battleships,and the rest were BCs or CAs is wrong. German warships WW2. Bismarck class ( Battleship ) Tonnage = 41,700 Lenght = 792 feet Guns = 8 x 15 inch. Armour belt = 13 inch. Speed = 29 knots Scharnhorst class ( Battlecruiser ) After the war Germany reclassed as Battleships! Tonnage = 34,840 ( Over twice the tonnage as the Heavy cruisers ) Lenght = 741 feet ( Over one hundred feet longer than the Heavy cruisers ) Guns = 9 x 11 inch Armour belt = 14 inch ( Belt thicker than Bismarck and 11 inches thicker than the Heavy cruisers ) Speed = 32 Knots Deutschland class ( Pocket Battleship/ Heavy cruiser ) Tonnage = 11,700 Lenght = 596 feet Guns = 6 x 11 inch Armour belt = 3 inch Speed = 28 Knots Hipper class ( Heavy cruiser ) Tonnage = 14,000 Lenght = 638 feet Guns = 8 x 8 inch Armour belt = 3 inch Speed = 33 Knots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk23 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 The old battleships were pre-dreadnought battleships, which means that they were already obsolete in WW1. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were lacking the (already ordered) 38 cm guns, which were ment to be installed later. But after the loss of the Bismarck this never happened: these guns were used to secure german occoupied coasts against an allied invasion. Technically Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were BBs, but they were equipped with CA guns (28 cm). The result was that they were not allowed to engage allied battleships, which is understandable when you can't fight on even terms. Nice link about the Hochseeflotte (WW1) and Kriegsmarine (WW2). The reason Scharnhorst was not allowed to engage allied Battleships I explained in an earlier post,but I will say again,it was not because the guns could not damage the allied Battleships,but because hitler did not want his only major surface units damaged so early in the war!!! The ships were to use their superior speed to flee the scene, if any convoys were escorted by Battleships,otherwise they could engage the merchant ships,because that was there primary mission,disrupt Britains merchant convoys,the heavy ships did not need to sink merchant ships to succeed in their mission,the fact that they were loose on the convoy routes was enough to scare the British admiralty! The 11 inch guns that Scharnhorst was equipped with were improved versions of the ones used by the High Seas Fleet WW1, and they damaged the British ships severely.They were used on the Dreadnoughts Westfalen class and the Battlecruisers Von der Tann,Moltke & Seydlitz classes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were always ment to receive 38 cm guns, but this never happened, when Hitler decided to abandon Readers fleet concept. The guns, once finally produced, went toward the atlantic wall instead. What happened when the Scharnhorst hat to fight its hopeless fight against a fully equipped Battleship is know. Scharnhorst fought, bravely, but without any any hope of victory, against the British Duke of York, and was sent down to the bottom of the cold sea. A survivor of the Scharnhorst once lived in my neighborhood, my brother had the chance to talk with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I have just read this and I have to repond to this load of bull Hi Hellfirejet, just a reminder to go easy on comments like this. We've had problems in the past with threads getting out of hand and the easiest way to prevent that is for everyone to post nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk23 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Ok understood I'll be nice,its just that the naval game is something I feel very strongly about,plus Scharnhorst is my favourite ship in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Thanks for understanding and passion is good too, nothing ever wrong with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts