WAS choice of Brit ships is awful...

[Major Adler]

what sort of logic was put into the choice of the Brit ships to be released?...apparently very little at all...

1) - we get the Ark Royal...a fine ship but only ONE was built in her class...

2) - one of the two British aircraft is the Sea Hurricane...and I can find no info with regards to Sea Hurricanes being operational off the Ark Royal...I belave we would have been better off with a land based Beaufighter...

3) - we get HMS Rodney...again a fine ship but one of 2 in it's class...instead it would have been nice to have a KGV class BB...so one could recreate the Bismark action...

4) - we get a Brit submarine...not sure why we even have any subs in the game...their type of warfare is a whole differnet ball game compared to fleet actions...we would have been better off with a Vosper MTB...

I am not a Naval warfare buff...I learned all this off the net with 1 hr. of research...

[Legbiter]

what sort of logic was put into the choice of of the Brit ships to be released?...apparently very little at all...

1) - we get the Ark Royal...a fine ship but only ONE was built in her class...

2) - one of the two British aircraft is the Sea Hurricane...and I can find no info with regards to Sea Hurricanes being operational off the Ark Royal...I belave we would have been better off with a land based Beaufighter...

3) - we get HMS Rodney...again a fine ship but one of 2 in it's class...instead it would have been nice to have a KGV class BB...so one could recreate the Bismark action...

4) - we get a Brit submarine...not sure why we even have any subs in the game...their type of warfare is a whole differnet ball game compared to fleet actions...we would have been better off with a Vosper MTB...

I am not a Naval warfare buff...I learned all this off the net with 1 hr. of research...

Aha, well done. I had thought HMS Truculent was a destroyer but you are right, in WW2 that name was born by a submarine. I was wondering why we didn't get a sub. I like subs and MTBs and believe they have an important place in fleet actions, but do not accept the apparent corollary that only fleet actions are worthy of recreation in this game. Actually you seem to think so too, given your hankering for a Vosper MTB.

The rest of your post is for Wizards to answer if anybody, but as a Brit I'm pleased to see them all. The Ark Royal after many mendacious claims by the Germans was eventually sunk [in the Med] and is also noteworthy as, erm, having been the ship whose planes buggered up the Bismarck, so if she hadn't been included presumably you'ld have been upset that her absence made it impossible to recreate Rheinubung/sinking the Bismarck. Sea Hurricanes are nice for harassing Condors and it is gentlemanly of Wizards not to point and laugh at the fact that our major naval fighter of the early war was the Fairey Fulmar, incapable of catching any known Axis aircraft unless they were actually chained down. As for Rodney I dunno, but it's kind of a funny name, especially if you are into Brit sitcoms. O yes, and she was one of only two British warships in 1941 to mount 16-inch guns, and she took part in the sinking of the Bismarck, and later in the invasion of Sicily.

[Zuxius]

I am happy to see the HMS Hood, too bad there is no Arizona. No fair shake for "what ifs".

Cheers,
Zuxius

[Major Adler]

the Bismarck battle recreation I was speaking of is the action between Hood + Prince of Wales and Bismarck + Prinz Eugen...but I see that we do not get a German heavy crusier either...so much for that...

I beleave that in the game...the Ark Royal will be better off flying all Swordfish torpedo bombers...I guess the Sea Hurricane is a what if thing...if the Ark Royal had not gone down...she would have had Sea Hurricanes on her...

for my Brit fleet I will rely upon Hood backed up by a good number of those county class crusiers...just cannot get into the Rodney or Nelson...

what part of Britain are you from?...

[Legbiter]

the Bismarck battle recreation I was speaking of is the action between Hood + Prince of Wales and Bismarck + Prinz Eugen...but I see that we do not get a German heavy crusier either...so much for that...

I beleave that in the game...the Ark Royal will be better off flying all Swordfish torpedo bombers...I guess the Sea Hurricane is a what if thing...if the Ark Royal had not gone down...she would have had Sea Hurricanes on her...

for my Brit fleet I will rely upon Hood backed up by a good number of those county class crusiers...just cannot get into the Rodney or Nelson...

what part of Britain are you from?...

Fair enough as regards your choice of British fleet. And in answer to your question, Portsmouth is where I live, but originally I am Scottish, from Edinburgh. So we quite often get to see the modern version of the Ark Royal. By some curious trick of perspective, when viewed from Southsea Common she seems to be floating above one as she glides towards Spithead.

[Major Adler]

two beautiful cities...I have visited them both while on holiday when I was stationed in Germany...

Portsmouth was a stop because of all the RN stuff there...loved HMS Victory...stopped for a day at "the Shot" on the way down from London (I went aboard the HMS Belfast , very kewl!!!)...had too see the Para museum...

I loved Edinburgh...the chapel up at the castle was great...saw the Tatoo (the Gurkhas were there that year)...hiked up to "Arthur's seat" several times...kind of a religious feeling up there...and of course what is all this rubbish about ARTHUR being from England...everyone knows the blood of the Goddodin ran thru his viens...

back to WAS...HMS Hood is going to get a real workout in my fleet...and will probably run HMS Ark Royal with 2 Swordfish units on board...then several of the County class heavy crusiers + Exeter (love that ship) + a couple of Leander class CLs + some J class DDs...

the other fleet I will run is the Italians...and I think I will back them up with a few German Kondors...

anyway...I am from Milwaukee , WI...where GenCon started the whole gaming thing...

[Legbiter]

"two beautiful cities...I have visited them both while on holiday when I was stationed in Germany...

Portsmouth was a stop because of all the RN stuff there...loved HMS Victory...stopped for a day at "the Shot" on the way down from London (I went aboard the HMS Belfast , very kewl!!!)...had too see the Para museum..."

When you come back, you must visit the Royal Marines Museum, the Warrior and the Mary Rose. Or, erm, half of the Mary Rose [the other half having been washed away by the sea]. Email me in advance of that happy event and I will show you round!

"I loved Edinburgh...the chapel up at the castle was great...saw the Tatoo (the Gurkhas were there that year)...hiked up to "Arthur's seat" several times..."

There's a GREAT view of Arthur's Seat from my parents' kitchen! And it's a nice walk, with an excellent view for a reward at the end.

"kind of a religious feeling up there...and of course what is all this rubbish about ARTHUR being from England...everyone knows the blood of the Goddodin ran thru his viens..."

Goddodin, Roman, Valentian or a bit of all of them, he FOUGHT the English, who were the civilisation-threatening Taleban of the epoch [but now, of course, the Stout Fellows upon whom we all depend, and i really AM NOT being ironic here]. Sir Winston Churchill wrote an [IMO] amazingly moving little piece on the meaning of the Arthurian legend in the first volume of A History of the English-Speaking Peoples. I will not quote it here, since i cannot read it without weeping, but recommend it to all of you!

"back to WAS...HMS Hood is going to get a real workout in my fleet...and will probably run HMS Ark Royal with 2 Swordfish units on board...then several of the County class heavy crusiers + Exeter (love that ship) + a couple of Leander class CLs + some J class DDs..."

I will probably build a German commerce-raiders fleet [2 units, one the Graf Spee] and then set plucky more-numerous-but-worse British/Aussie/French task forces against them.

"the other fleet I will run is the Italians...and I think I will back them up with a few German Kondors..."

:) Missing those SM79's, eh? No worries, I bet they will be in the next expansion. But why not Stukas for your Italian fleet? The Italians did fly Stukas.

"anyway...I am from Milwaukee , WI...where GenCon started the whole gaming thing..."

Alright, I have relatives in Iowa! Not TOO far from you, unless my American Geography is even worse than I think. The E-boat crewing Great Uncle I referred to in an earlier post emigrated with my Great Aunt to Iowa, and they had two girls. The younger of these produced a daughter, but skipped the getting married thing. Come to think of it she now lives in California, which IS a bit of a drive, I guess.

[Major Adler]

I did not know the Italians flew Stukas...might go that route...

hmmmm...now I wonder if Kondors flew in the Med...

will check out that Churchill Arthurian legend stuff...thanks...

[MarcusAurelius]

Obviously, the British Royal Navy has a ways to go. I was really hoping to see merchant aircraft carriers, myself. But this isn't a bad start. Here's a breakdown of the British units by unit type:

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
It's hard to argue with the choice of the Ark Royal. Even though it's the only ship in its class, this one's an essential. Major actions included the Battle of the River Plate, the Norwegian campaign and the sinking of the Bismarck. Grade: A

BATTLESHIPS
Not including a King George V class battleship is definitely a letdown. The King George V and the Prince of Wales both fought the Bismarck, while the Duke of York duelled with the German battlecruiser Scharnhorst in the Battle of North Cape. Grade: C-

BATTLECRUISERS
The Hood is another must-have. Many considered its loss at the Battle of the Denmark Strait the most shocking news of World War II. Still, battlecruisers were a flawed concept and this probably won't be a great unit in War at Sea. Grade: B+

HEAVY CRUISERS
True, the Exeter is one of only 2 ships in the York class. But keep in mind that the Canberra can stand in for any one of the Royal Navy's 11 County class ships. Those two classes cover nearly every British heavy cruiser in service during World War II. Grade: A

LIGHT CRUISERS
Ajax is a pretty good pick for its role in the Battle of the River Plate and the Battle of Cape Matapan. The biggest knock on this unit is that it's from the same class as the Sydney. Including two Leander class cruisers in the first set doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Grade: B-

DESTROYERS
At least 20 different destroyer classes saw action with the Royal Navy during World War II. While the Tribal class was more widely produced (with nearly 30 built between 1937 and 1945), the HMS Javelin J class destroyer should make a good early war unit. Grade: A-

SUBMARINES
The Royal Navy commissioned more than 50 T class submarines before and during the war. The HMS Truculent should make for some interesting battles, especially convoy supply scenarios in the Mediterranean. Grade: A

TORPEDO BOMBERS
Despite being outdated by 1939, the Fairey Swordfish is another indispensible unit for its role in the destruction of the Italian fleet in Taranto and the attack on the Bismarck. Grade: A

FIGHTERS
The Hawker Sea Hurricane is probably as good a choice as any for an early-war fighter, although I personally prefer the Gloster Gladiator. Grade: A-

OVERALL
Considering the degree to which the first set is dominated by the U.S. and Japan, I think the Brits did pretty well. They essentially get 3 extra units from other nations, as well — including the Canberra, Sydney and PBY Catalina. Grade: A-

[CruorVult]

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
It's hard to argue with the choice of the Ark Royal. Even though it's the only ship in its class, this one's an essential. Major actions included the Battle of the River Plate, the Norwegian campaign and the sinking of the Bismarck. Grade: A

the Ark Royal is very significant from a design standpoint as well. it was the first large fleet carrier built from the ground-up by the RN, and also the first of many British carriers to be built with a flight-deck integral to the hull.

BATTLESHIPS
Not including a King George V class battleship is definitely a letdown. The King George V and the Prince of Wales both fought the Bismarck, while the Duke of York duelled with the German battlecruiser Scharnhorst in the Battle of North Cape. Grade: C-

if not as famous, Rodney's record was certainly no less remarkable than other British battleships in action at the time. she participated in the Bismarck chase just the same, as well as attempting to pursue Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in their channel dash. her heavy armament and unique appearance add more variety to this first release as well, which was probably a large consideration in her inclusion in the set.

BATTLECRUISERS
The Hood is another must-have. Many considered its loss at the Battle of the Denmark Strait the most shocking news of World War II. Still, battlecruisers were a flawed concept and this probably won't be a great unit in War at Sea. Grade: B+

that the concept of the battlecruiser was flawed is a common misconception. because of Hood's sinking and the losses at Jutland a lot of criticism was drawn to the battlecruiser concept, but it was more likely just flaws in British designs and operations.

HEAVY CRUISERS
True, the Exeter is one of only 2 ships in the York class. But keep in mind that the Canberra can stand in for any one of the Royal Navy's 11 County class ships. Those two classes cover nearly every British heavy cruiser in service during World War II. Grade: A

though very similar, York and Exeter can be said to not be of the same class due to structural differences. the most notable differences are the vertical funnels and increased elevation allowance in the turrets, but more changes were made after receiving a beating from Graf Spee. this is just a technical gripe, and shouldn't stop you from fielding an extra Exeter in a game of WAS to represent HMS York. :)


LIGHT CRUISERS
Ajax is a pretty good pick for its role in the Battle of the River Plate and the Battle of Cape Matapan. The biggest knock on this unit is that it's from the same class as the Sydney. Including two Leander class cruisers in the first set doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Grade: B-

this is another good example of a sub-class, but more notable differences are present between the Leanders and Perths. the machinery arrangements inside these ships were quite different, but about the only outward tip-off is the twin funnels in the latter as compared to the formers' single funnel. the boilers and engine rooms were alternated in the Perths and each contained in a single unit to lessen the likelihood of one hit disabling mobility.

OVERALL
Considering the degree to which the first set is dominated by the U.S. and Japan, I think the Brits did pretty well. They essentially get 3 extra units from other nations, as well — including the Canberra, Sydney and PBY Catalina. Grade: A-

more than that! the RN's Fleet Air Arm flew the F4F Wildcat, and the RNZAF operated both it and the SBD Dauntless

[Quel]

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
It's hard to argue with the choice of the Ark Royal. Even though it's the only ship in its class, this one's an essential. Major actions included the Battle of the River Plate, the Norwegian campaign and the sinking of the Bismarck. Grade: A




No carriers were present during the Battle of the River Plate.

[MarcusAurelius]

No carriers were present during the Battle of the River Plate.

My mistake. Not sure what I was thinking here. I know the Ark Royal was en route after the battle, but still hadn't arrived by the time the Admiral Graf Spee was scuttled.

[Major Adler]

I hardly consider the grade given the British ship allocation in this game to be an A-...there are many very critical errors...a C+ is more like it...

[Stealth]

I hardly consider the grade given the British ship allocation in this game to be an A-...there are many very critical errors...a C+ is more like it...

About the only ship I would have changed is the Nelson, as mentioned a KGV would have been much better.

I think the Ark Royal is the best British carrier choice, completely iconic to WWII naval buffs. While yes, there were other classes with multiple ships, the old Ark is far more recognizable.

As far as subs, who knows? It all depends on their rules and implementation, and thats up in the air. (Or down under the water)

[Quel]

My mistake. Not sure what I was thinking here. I know the Ark Royal was en route after the battle, but still hadn't arrived by the time the Admiral Graf Spee was scuttled.

After reading about the battle, I managed to figure out what probably confused you. From Wikipedia:

"efforts were made by the British to feed false intelligence to the Germans that an overwhelming British force was being assembled, including the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal and the battlecruiser HMS Renown, when in fact only the heavy cruiser HMS Cumberland was nearby..."

Reading further, you were right in that Ark Royal was tasked to the area, as well as a few escorts, though they were some five days away. It would have given Graf Spee enough time to escape and likely damage or destroy the three ships that were actually there at the time, had the captain not believed the false information.

[Kaufschtick]

I'm no expert on the naval stuff, but I'm O.K. with the set one units. If anything, I'll be learning quite a bit about this aspect of WWII over the coming weeks and months.:)

[MarcusAurelius]

I hardly consider the grade given the British ship allocation in this game to be an A-...there are many very critical errors...a C+ is more like it...

Clearly, assigning a grade like this is highly subjective. I think it's a matter of how you look at it. Rather than focusing on ships or aircraft that won't be included in Set 1, what if you ask a different question: Are there any units on the set list that you wouldn't want?

For me, the answer is no. I'd choose a KGV or even a Revenge class battleship before the Rodney — but I want all 3 eventually. Given that, I thought a C- was fair. An okay unit, but nothing special.

The Ark Royal and Hood are two of the most iconic warships of WWII. The rest of the units are solid picks that give Britain a well-rounded force for Set 1. I want them all. The A- overall grade (averaging the grades for each unit) reflects that.

Given the collectible nature of AAM (which doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon), I think that's about as much as we can expect from any given set. If you give the UK a C+ — not much more than satisfactory — how do you arrive at that?

[MarcusAurelius]

more than that! the RN's Fleet Air Arm flew the F4F Wildcat, and the RNZAF operated both it and the SBD Dauntless

I think the Royal Navy can probably field the U.S. PT Boat, as well.

While the U.S. Navy built several classes of torpedo boats, they were all similar in design and armament — 70 to 80 feet long, with 20mm machine guns, 21" torpedoes and top speeds of about 40 knots. This aligns closely with the characteristics of the British-built Vosper motor torpedo boats.

In fact, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the initial USN PT boat designs were directly influenced by their UK counterparts.

[Major Adler]

never having...

the Rodney...so many other great Brit BBs out there to have...as mentioned many times this slot should have been filled by the KGV...

the SeaHurricane...since the SeaHurricane never flew off the Ark Royal...and since most of the newer Brit carriers used Wildcats or Corsairs (the Brits were the first country to make the Corsair operational off carriers)...this slot could have given us a MTB...and we could have used the U.S. Wildcat off the Ark Royal...

the T-class sub Truculent...all the subs to me are a big waste in this game...their type of warfare lends itself to another type of game all togehter...this slot could have been filled with a H , Tribal or Weapons class DD...

these ships models are not collectable...they are pcs. in a collectable based game...two completly different animals old boy...

[MarcusAurelius]

the Rodney...so many other great Brit BBs out there to have...as mentioned many times this slot should have been filled by the KGV...

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I may not be as excited about the Rodney as I would about Prince of Wales, but I think it's still an important unit in the game.

the SeaHurricane...since the SeaHurricane never flew off the Ark Royal...and since most of the newer Brit carriers used Wildcats or Corsairs...this slot could have given us a MTB...and we could have used the Wildcat off the Ark Royal...

You make a good point about the Sea Hurricane. Although this fighter served with escort aircraft carriers (including HMS Biter and Avenger) and merchant aircraft carriers, these ships weren't commissioned until 1942. The air group of the Ark Royal typically flew Blackburn Skuas, Fairey Swordfish and Fairey Fulmars. After thinking about this again, I'd probably lower my grade for the Sea Hurricane to a B- or C+.

the T-class sub Truculent...all the subs to me are a big waste in this game...their type of warfare lends itself to another type of game all togehter...this slot could have been filled with a H , Tribal or Weapons class DD...

I'll reserve judgment on submarines in War at Sea until I get a look at the mechanics. But I have read that Royal Navy subs played a critical role in the war — sinking or damaging 78 warships (including 38 enemy subs) and 2 million tons of shipping. They may add an interesting surveillance/recon element to the game, as well.

these ships models are not collectable...they are pcs. in a collectable based game...two completly different animals old boy...

My comment on the collectible nature of AAM referred solely to the distribution method. I'm not a fan of it, but it's a reality we have to deal with.

[Richter von Manthofen]

I think the units included in the Set are OK (if not excellent) choices, but a few slots more would have been nice.

Its the same with Germany Bismarck is there, but the Prinz Eugen would have been another unit that I had hoped for.

But this is a Pacific game, so I can understand the decision to give that the most units...

I had hoped for French and Australian planes, but that might come in another expansion.

Next Set? War in the Mediterranian ?

[TheJudge]

Not having all the ships required to run a Hunt the Bismarck scenario is unacceptable. Grade F on that.

Having units from later in the war also seems silly to me. Set one should have been German, Italian, British, and French heavy and US Japan should have had like half the units but there go the designers again trying to please everyone and trying to fit 10 pounds of stuff in a 5 pound bag. Grade C-

Seeing cruisers as rares just pisses me off. A Baltimore Class cruiser is a rare? Huh? They built a bunch of them. The collectible aspect of the game and the desire to make people chase rares is so annoying. Games like Heroscape blow away WOTC in this regard. Grade F-

From the few images I have seen, the models look good, the map looks interesting but I honestly don't even care, I will be using Heroscape stuff for water and islands and playing on a table befitting the size of the ships and the great expanse of the ocean. This game does not seem properly playable on a card table map, it will feel like a board game and the pieces are to big. Grade D-

Hey, it's a World War 2 Naval minis game and I love the concept. Grade A+

Overall, without having played a single game, I'll grade it a C+ so far and will be completely open minded as more and more news comes along that may improve or hurt the grade overall.

[Major Adler]

TheJudge...I agree on all points...

[Sean-Khan]

Seeing cruisers as rares just pisses me off. A Baltimore Class cruiser is a rare? Huh? They built a bunch of them. The collectible aspect of the game and the desire to make people chase rares is so annoying. Games like Heroscape blow away WOTC in this regard. Grade F-


Hey, I and many others are not going all-out with this game. I want Yamato, Enterprise, Bismark, Royal Ark, Scharnhorst, a brit battleship, a *** carrier or two - maybe a few other rare ships. And I believe I'm ready to trade any Baltimore Class cruisers for any of those I listed I might not get. If there's an uc that is somewhat comparable to a Rare I get, I'm likely to trade that Rare away.

That kind of facts gives some balance to values of pieces in games like this; Some people want only unique ships, some lots of non-unique. In my poll, 40% of those who answered wanted only most unique or otherwise selected pieces from countries of their choise.

[XAos]

Hey, I and many others are not going all-out with this game. I want Yamato, Enterprise, Bismark, Royal Ark, Scharnhorst, a brit battleship, a *** carrier or two - maybe a few other rare ships. And I believe I'm ready to trade any Baltimore Class cruisers for any of those I listed I might not get. If there's an uc that is somewhat comparable to a Rare I get, I'm likely to trade that Rare away.

Me too.
Of the rares I want a few Iconics {Graf Spee, Exeter, Sharnhorst, Shokaku etc} The other rares I don't care about & will happily trade for the ones I want.
A bigger problem might be the merchant ships. Some players will want dozens of those for convoy battles or amphibious assaults.


the T-class sub Truculent...all the subs to me are a big waste in this game...their type of warfare lends itself to another type of game all togehter...

While most navies excluded subs from suporting surface ships. The Japanese regularly used subs in major fleet actions. Both to find the US carriers & to torpedo them. e.g. At least 2 early war US carriers were sunk by submarines. I suppose A/H could have included just the I-19. But then I'm sure a lot of players would have complained about no one else having submarines. And it would certainly be unfair to deny the german fleet it's U-boats. Which sank far more of the british navy than the surface fleet ever managed. e.g. Ark Royal & Courageous were both sunk by a U-Boats.

[swarbs]

that the concept of the battlecruiser was flawed is a common misconception. because of Hood's sinking and the losses at Jutland a lot of criticism was drawn to the battlecruiser concept, but it was more likely just flaws in British designs and operations.


Gotta say I disagree, the fact that the British didn't upgrade thier battlecruisers into fast battleships like the Japanese did is unexcusable and led to the loss of the Hood. They were only ever used for thier true purpose once (at the Falklands when two Brit BC's chased down the German Armored Cruisers Scharnhorst and Gniesenou). While this may have been partly due to British leadership I largely believe that they were better suited as nice looking flagships (as the hood often served) than as actual weapons systems.