|
Post by RNRobert on Feb 6, 2017 12:01:33 GMT -6
In the 1890s, Great Britain was greatly concerned about the Rurik class armored cruisers that Russia was building, and the possible threat to her merchant fleet. In response, England built the Powerful and Terrible, First Class Protected Cruisers that were twice the size of previous cruisers. However, the capabilities of the Russian vessels were greatly exaggerated (a few years later, the British would overreact in a similar to manner to the news of Russia building the Peresviet class ‘fast’ battleships and respond by constructing the Duncan class battleships), and the Royal Navy was stuck with two manpower-intensive fuel hogs. They spent much of their active duty time (when not in reserve) as transports, and ended their lives as accommodation ships before being sent to the breakers. I thought it would be interesting to create a scenario pitting these adversaries. The Rurik and her half-sister Rossiya are in the game, but not the British ships, so I had to improvise. I chose the Cressy class to represent them as they are very similar in size, speed and appearance, and nearly identical in armament (the only difference is that the Powerful class has four more 3” guns and two more torpedo tubes than the Cressy class. The biggest difference is that the Cressy class is better protected, having an armored belt which the Powerful lacked (they also used the newer Krupp Cemented armor, instead of the Harvey armor). I gave the British good crews, and the Russians average. Pointwise, the setup favors the Russians, but I've found that the game is pretty fairly balanced playwise. ARMORED CRUISER RUMBLE 3.txt (986 B)
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Apr 21, 2016 5:54:00 GMT -6
One issue about the Japanese move south and the US intelligence assessment that is tragic, in my estimation is the fact that we were looking in the wrong direction. I don't mean just toward Europe, which in fact is true, but we expected after the German invasion of Russia, the Japanese to move their army into Manchuria and Southern Siberia due to the closure of the Transsiberian Railroad. This was a primary source of raw materials for the Japanese. The issue for the Japanese was one of pledged neutrality to Russa and being part of the Axis powers. Which direction do you go? Japanese intelligence did not want the German's to move all the way to vladivostock after winning in the West. Many in the State department felt that the IJA would move against the Maritime provinces and other areas of Siberia to eliminate the German's getting too close. <snip> From what I've read, the IJA was involved in a couple of skirmishes with the Russians between 1938 and 1940, and both times, they got clobbered. So, I don't see the Japanese (who had their hands full with China) being overly enthusiastic in taking on the Russians.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Apr 15, 2016 5:47:52 GMT -6
When I acquire a new colony, I will build a fort (with 6" to 8" guns) to provide a modicum of defense, but other than that, I don't really bother.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Apr 13, 2016 10:20:35 GMT -6
I find that torpedoes on a battleship are like teats on a bull. You have to get close to have any chance of hitting anything with them, and that simply increases your risk of being torpedoed.
When I play the RJW/WW1 scenarios in WC-NAW (where many of the BBs and CAs have torpedoes), I use them only towards the end of a scenario, to help finish off cripples.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Apr 11, 2016 6:05:42 GMT -6
When I play, I usually do not build any new battleships until I can have at least three main gun turrets. I also invest money in larger docks right off the bat.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Apr 9, 2016 18:08:34 GMT -6
Well, using all the suggestions from all of you, I had a successful game as the British. I had three successful wars, and finally focussed on Hulls, machinery, fire control etc. plus submarines. I scrapped my 400 ton destroyers and replaced them with larger ships with more torpedoes, scrapped my armored cruisers replacing them with battle cruisers and battleships. Developed my light cruisers and still built an adequate number of medium range subs. In my war against France, I moved armored cruisers from other foreign locations to the Med and won all battles without a fight, gaining many VP's in the process. I ended up with 46 prestige points, my highest. Thanks for all the ideas and suggestions. I still believe that the best strategy for the Italians and Austro-Hungarians is submarines, Armed Merchant cruisers and light forces. I concur with following a 'guerre de course' strategy when playing weaker nations. Regarding the 400-ton destroyers, I usually keep them around until the early '20s, relegating them to ASW/coastal patrol (cheaper than building minesweepers) and placing them in reserve in peacetime.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Apr 7, 2016 10:14:43 GMT -6
I've found that the number of fleet battles varies depending on the nation you play. For example, when I play the US, I find that fleet battles are rare (although there were a couple convoy actions that had a number of BBs/BCs on both sides and was almost a small fleet action). When playing Austria-Hungary, I find fleet battles are far more frequent (perhaps it has something to do with operating in the enclosed waters of the Adriatic. The Austro-Hungarian Navy came into existence in 1867 and ended in 1918. That's 51 years, at best. Except for Otranto and the Dalmatian coast operations, there were no fleet engagements. Those two operations were not fleet engagements. AH only had one fleet base at Trieste. But, games are meant to be entertainment, not history. So, I guess the game does its job, it entertains. Seeya. In the 1900-1925 period of the game, there were only three wars involving naval combat: The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, which had two major naval actions: Yellow Sea Tsushima The First Balkan War of 1912-1913, which had two significant naval actions: Elli Lemnos The First World War 1914-1918, which had one fleet battle: Jutland plus a number of smaller actions: First Battle of Heligoland Bight Coronel Falklands Dogger Bank Second Battle of Heligoland Bight If you were to play a game just fighting a similar number of battles in that time period, it would be pretty boring. As it states in the manual, the game is not intended to precisely recreate history. In a way, RTW reminds me of the old Avalon Hill board game 'Diplomacy', which was also set in the early 20th century, and was not intended to give a strict historical interpretation, but to give players the feel for the diplomacy and intrigue of the era.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Apr 7, 2016 8:55:08 GMT -6
Question to everyone: Is it just my style of play or do we fight too many wars and fleet engagements? I know this is a game and is supposed to be entertaining but five wars in 25 years. I also had 8 fleet engagements and 3 disguised fleet engagements. There weren't that many in the 125 years since Trafalgar in 1805. The Battle of Santiago Bay, Manila Bay, Tsushima Straights, Jutland, and the Battle of the Yalu during the Sino-Japanese War. I mean major fleet engagements. There was the Battle of Lissa in 1866. That's only six, in 125 years. I don't fight major fleet engagements anymore, I let the points go by and gain them back in trade warfare and convoy attacks. It works perfectly. I've found that the number of fleet battles varies depending on the nation you play. For example, when I play the US, I find that fleet battles are rare (although there were a couple convoy actions that had a number of BBs/BCs on both sides and was almost a small fleet action). When playing Austria-Hungary, I find fleet battles are far more frequent (perhaps it has something to do with operating in the enclosed waters of the Adriatic.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Apr 7, 2016 6:05:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Apr 5, 2016 6:38:41 GMT -6
Well, in my third time playing Austria Hungary, I finally retired in 1926 with a prestige of 36 (the last game I played, I retired with a prestige of 22 and had a minesweeper named after me). I fought two wars with Italy and defeated them handily both times. I also fought a war against France, and a war against Russia, which ended briefly with no territory exchanged.
Of course, i think the big reason for my success was that unlike the last two times, I was able to avoid war with the UK.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Apr 4, 2016 8:51:00 GMT -6
i don't have a picture atm but what do you people think of light cruisers with fore and aft single 8 inch guns?(+ a number of 6inch or smaller) i found them very effective at sinking out ships that attempt to intercept them during raiding as well giving them ability to harm large ships better in fleet engagements i call them the zwitter class due to mixing elements of light and heavy cruisers In one game actually built ships like this, and they made fairly effective raiders.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Apr 1, 2016 19:47:19 GMT -6
Roumba, I believe that this kind of ambiguity is intended by the author. There are many other examples in which the outcome varies quite a bit from what you would expect from reading the text. The outcome can worse but can also be far better than you expected from reading the selection text. Yes. I was playing Austria-Hungary in a war against the UK and Italy and getting clobbered. England collapsed, but Italy decided to fight on. After a few months, I was told Italy offered terms that were harsh. I decided to take them, but to my surprise, none of my ships or territories were taken.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Mar 31, 2016 17:21:05 GMT -6
One of the most interesting issue about the Pearl Harbor attack is the finger pointing that occurred in the US after the event. We witnessed it after 9/11. The military pointing fingers at the President and Congress for not passing larger navy bills earlier, the President pointing fingers at the Congress, the Congress absolving their responsibility by saying " we gave you the money and it is your job to assess the enemy and his possible alternative actions". The press pointing fingers at everyone including the American people. The responsibility actually was everyone's fault, for not assessing the Japanese correctly and stop sending scrap iron to them, knowing they weren't making frying pans and such out of it. There was enough blame for all. Here is my partial list: 1. President Roosevelt - for making the US Navy leave the battle fleet at Pearl Harbor after Admiral Richardson had informed him, personally, that the base defenses were not ready. 2. General Short - For putting the Army Command whose responsibility it was to protect the fleet in the harbor, on sabotage alert instead of full alert. He had no information, to warrant that decision. 3. Admiral Kimmel - For not putting torpedo nets around the battleships, a precaution that should have always been done. 4. Press - For believing that the Japanese, who already had an illegal operation in China, were no threat to the US, even though we knew they had a predilection for attacking without warning. This failure rests on the Congress as well. People like Charles Lindberg who most later believed was a Nazi sympathizer. 5. Congress - For not stopping economic assistance in the form of scrap iron and banking to the Japanese, along with stopping industries from selling military parts to the Japanese. One perfect example was the engines used on their aircraft especially the Zero were copies of Wright engines and propellers that had Hamilton Standard stamped on them. Congress should have been warned when Japanese gold funds were being removed from the New York Federal Reserve bank just before the attack. 6. The US people - For burying their heads in the sand about Europe and Japan, hoping that peace would come because of good will and nice talk. It doesn't. If you want peace, you have to arm for war. Its been a norm for 2000 years. The US people were still in a bad economic depression and were just coming out of it. They really didn't want to think about another war, like the previous that they thought we should never have been involved with. You can't bury your head in the sand, hoping things will go away. The list goes on and on, but overall, the military didn't do its job, the press and US people failed, and the President failed because of his stupid idea that he could bluff the Japanese. None were without blame. Several years ago, I read Gordon Prange's "At Dawn We Slept." In reading it, I felt General Short was particularly clueless. The war games in Hawaii that summer focused on repelling a Japanese invasion. In the scenario, US airpower had been wiped out, and so the exercise had aviation personnel serving as ground troops. Short even wanted the airmen to have two months infantry training, and when aviation officers complained this would take away from flight training, asked what he was supposed to do with "surplus" personnel. I also think Kimmel could have done more to protect the fleet. Up until the attack, the fleet followed a predictable routine of leaving Pearl on Monday for training, returning on Friday and spending the weekend in port. He could have alternated deployments, or dispersed to other anchorages, so that you didn't have the entire fleet in port at any one time. Also, about a week before Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel was informed by his intelligence officer, LCDR Edwin Layton, that Carrier Divisions 1 and 2 (consisting of four of the six carriers involved in the Pearl Harbor raid) were no longer appearing in Japanese radio traffic, and thus he did not know where they were. Kimmel asked, "Do you mean to tell me they could be rounding Diamond Head, and you wouldn't know it?" Layton replied he hoped they would have been spotted by then. What struck me most from reading the book was the cognitive dissonance displayed by our civilian and military leaders. Many of them, not just in Washington, but even in Hawaii, predicted that the Japanese would likely commence hostilities against the United States with a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor (and US Navy wargames in the '30s showed a surprise carrier raid on Pearl Harbor was doable). However, at the same time, these same people had this attitude of disbelief that the Japanese would actually go through with it.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Mar 29, 2016 16:24:39 GMT -6
Regarding forts, I don't spend too much on them. However, when I acquire a new territory, I will build a fort there (since there's usually none there), typically 6 to 8 inch, to provide a modicum defence.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Mar 28, 2016 19:36:42 GMT -6
Even with battleships, you can still be blockaded, especially if you are playing a small nation like Austria-Hungary and fighting a more powerful nation like Britain. Both times I've been this situation, and both times, my battleships got sunk with little to show for it. The only way to beat blockades is with convoys, and submarines. Since convoys are not allowed, then submarines would be the only answer. The shipping for Italy and Austria-Hungary is mostly coastal. If we can build enough AMC's and subs, you might have a chance. I've only played Italy and AH, it works on those two countries. The US East Coast after Pearl Harbor, is an example of how to secure coastal shipping. It required DE's escorting coastal convoys to stop the Uboat's. The last time I played Austria-Hungary and fought Britain, it was my submarine fleet that saved my bacon (though by the time the war ended, my country had an unrest level of 11, and I thought for sure I'd be sacked). In the current game, my country is facing a food shortage and unrest, but my AMCs and subs are causing the Brits to feel the pinch as well, so it will be interesting to see who cracks first.
|
|