What would you like to see in set 2...

[XAos]

German;
Prinz Eugen
Type XXI uboat
E-Boat

Italian;
Conte di Cavoir

UK;
King George V
Warspite
Illustrious
Renown
Flower class corvette

Japanese;
Ise
Oi

US;
Corsair
B-17
P-38

French;
Surcouf

Dutch;
De Ruyter

[Lynx7725]

You're selling the IJN and USN awfully short. Since WotC's going by named ships, there are dozens if not hundreds of ship names. In particular, we do need a lot more destroyers -- these are great for small games but in the base set, we got very few of them.

Also, more US submarines can also be added -- their service in the Pacific is rather important, though not often mentioned.

Hmm, the Russians did have a navy...

Looking at this though, it's a bit hard to see beyond Set 2 or Set 3. Maybe it would help if we can draw the timeline back a little, and bring in the Jutland fleets or even Qing Chinese fleet.. but that might be a bit difficult for various reasons, one big one being point balance.

[Joisey]

I want Set II, first and foremost, to include any ships not in Set I that are needed to do the Battle of Midway. Second fill in the ships and planes to do the Battle of the Bismarck. Third would be the carriers involved in the Battle of the Coral Sea.

If we haven't already filled in a whole set with the needs of those three battles, there's always the carriers and battleships to recreate Pearl Harbor to be done.

The attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto can wait for Set III.

[TheCygnysGuardian]

Set II...
IJN Fubuki or Ayanami - Fubuki class destroyer
IJN Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate - Great interceptor & fighter-bomber
IJN Kawanishi H6K - Long-range flying boat/bomber
IJN Mitsubishi Ki-67 Hiryu - Why not?
IJN Kyushu J7W1 - See above

US F7F Bearcat - What the hey
US B-29 Superfortress - Bwahahaha! No
US USS Montana (BB-67) - Now, that's a big ship

...That's all I can think of now.

[Sean-Khan]

Mm, planes :)

Spit/Seafire
Short Sunderland
Lancaster
Me-109
Ju-88
He-111 (unlikely)
Avenger
Corsair
B-17
Bristol Beaufort

I really agree about E-boat, but again, my knowledge of ships is a bit lacking...

[Legbiter]

MTB's, especially Soviet, British and two flavours of German [E-boot and S-boot].

Consolidated Liberator

King George V/Prince of Wales, Repulse

Ju-88

SM79

Short Sunderland

Battleship Marat [SU]
Soviet submarine

Surcouf

Latecoere L-298

Escort carriers

Dutch, Norwegian and Polish ships/submarines

[Priest]

For set 2:

IJN BB Fuso
IJN BB Nagato
IJN CL Kitakami
IJN CA Mogami
IJN CVE Hosho
IJN CV Shinano

DKM BB Tirpitz
DKM CV Graft Zeppelin (Never Built)
DKM DD Z-1
DKM CA Prinz Eugen / Admiral Hipper

RN BB KG-V
RN CA HMS York


Maybe not in the set 2 but for later set

All those were never built but projected

DKM BB H-39 and H-44
DKM CV Europa

IJN BB Yokozuna (Super Yamato 6x20" guns)

USN BB Montana

RN BB HMS Lion
RN CV Malta Project

[MarcusAurelius]

Top 25 Rares I'd like to see for Set 2
1. Prinz Eugen Admiral Hipper class heavy cruiser (Germany)
2. Saratoga Lexington class carrier (USA)
3. Prince of Wales King George V class battleship (UK)
4. Minneapolis New Orleans class heavy cruiser (USA)
5. Junyo Hiyo class carrier (Japan)
6. Illustrious Illustrious class carrier (UK)
7. South Dakota South Dakota class battleship (USA)
8. Essex Essex class carrier (USA)
9. Mikuma Mogami class heavy cruiser (Japan)
10. Hiryu Soryu class carrier (Japan)
11. Pola Zara class heavy cruiser (Italy)
12. Royal Oak Revenge class battleship (UK)
13. Nagato Nagato class battleship (Japan)
14. Colbert Suffren class heavy cruiser (France)
15. Conte di Cavour Conte di Cavour class battleship (Italy)
16. Repulse Renown class battlecruiser (UK)
17. Dunkerque Dunkerque class battleship (France)
18. West Virginia Colorado class battleship (USA)
19. Glorious Glorious class carrier (UK)
20. Fuso Fuso class battleship (Japan)
21. New Mexico New Mexico class battleship (USA)
22. Bearn Bearn class carrier (France)
23. Suffolk County class heavy cruiser (UK)
24. Amagi Unryu class carrier (Japan)
25. Lorraine Bretagne class battleship (France)

[MarcusAurelius]

Top 20 Uncommons I'd like to see for Set 2
1. CANT Z.506 Airone patrol bomber (Italy)
2. Chaser Bogue class escort carrier (UK)
3. Short Sunderland patrol bomber (UK)
4. Orion auxiliary cruiser (Germany)
5. Kawanishi H8K "Emily" patrol bomber (Japan)
6. Vincennes Cleveland class light cruiser (US)
7. Suwanee Sangamon class escort carrier (US)
8. Dido Dido class light cruiser (UK)
9. Unyo Taiyo class escort carrier (Japan)
10. North American B-25 Mitchell bomber (US)
11. Duguay-Trouin Duguay-Trouin class light cruiser (France)
12. Activity Nairana class escort carrier (UK)
13. Agano Agano class light cruiser (Japan)
14. Ontario Minotaur class light cruiser (Canada)
15. Alberto di Giussano Di Giussano class light cruiser (Italy)
16. Lockheed PV-1 Ventura patrol bomber (US)
17. Junkers Ju 290 patrol bomber (Germany)
18. Milwaukee Omaha class light cruiser (US)
19. Nurnberg Leipzig class light cruiser (Germany)
20. Handley Page Halifax bomber (UK)

[mikoyan]

USS Yorktown
USS Hornet

Some more Escort Carriers.

B-24 (these were used quite extensively in the Battle of the Atlantic)

More US Destroyers.

[MarcusAurelius]

Top 25 Commons I'd like to see for Set 2
1. Type VIIC U-boat (Germany)
2. Tribal class destroyer (UK)
3. Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Sparviero torpedo bomber (Italy)
4. Flower class corvette (Canada)
5. Grumman TBF Avenger torpedo bomber (US)
6. Kawanishi N1K-J "George" fighter (Japan)
7. Heinkel He 115 torpedo bomber (Germany)
8. Benson class destroyer (US)
9. Akizuki class destroyer (Japan)
10. Curtiss SB2C Helldiver dive bomber (US)
11. Hunt class destroyer escort (UK)
12. Chance Vought F4U Corsair (US)
13. Macchi C.200 Saetta fighter (Italy)
14. E-Boat (Germany)
15. Nakajima B6N "Jill" torpedo bomber (Japan)
16. Fairey Fulmar fighter (UK)
17. Tambor class submarine (US)
18. Blackburn Skua fighter/dive bomber (UK)
19. Junkers Ju 88 fighter/bomber (Germany)
20. Yokosuka D4Y Suisei "Judy" dive bomber (Japan)
21. Spica class destroyer escort (Italy)
22. Submarine chaser (US)
23. Brewster Buffalo fighter (Australia)
24. Maurane-Saulnier M.S.406 fighter (France)
25. Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighter (Germany)

Honorable mention
Le Hardi class destroyer (France)
Bristol Type 152 Beaufort torpedo bomber (UK)
Battle class destroyer (UK)
Fairey Barracuda torpedo bomber (UK)
Agosta class submarine (France)
Gloster Gladiator fighter (UK)

[dracos42]

What I would like to see.

USS Houston, heavy cruiser
USS Marblehead, light cruiser
USS Nevada, battlewagon
USS Alaska/Guam, battlecruiser
Flush-deck destroyers
USMC defense battalion, coastal defense force
B-25 gunships
F8F Bearcat, Ryan Fireball, Douglas Skyraider (in a later set)

HMS Warspite, battleship
HMS Hermes, light carrier
HMAS Perth, light cruiser
Armed merchant cruisers
UK/Can/Norway MAC (tankers or grain carriers equipped with a flight deck for a handful of Swordfish. Stopgap measure before the CVEs appeared in numbers.)

IJN Yubari, light cruiser (I like that ship)
IJN Takao, heavy cruiser
seaplane-carrying subs

This is a very incomplete list of desires.

Mike L.

[Flyboy]

Set one isnt even out yet!!!:D I think I need to see how playable the fleets of set one are first before I make any suggestions.....Except defanatly the Missouri:D

[TheJudge]

Since the set 1 unit list is dreadfully incomplete and I would have liked to have seen these ships in set 1, let's go with:

Ajax
Achillies
Cumberland

All fought at the Battle of River Plate against Graf Spee

Prince of Wales
Prinz Eugen

Not having all the ships for the Hunt the Bismarck scenario in set 1 is stutarded.

Hornet, Yorktown, Hiryu, Soryu, Kaga so a Midway scenario could be played properly, at least with all the carrier units.

Lexington, Zuikaku so Coral Sea could be played.

River Plate, Bismarck, Matapan, Coral Sea, and Midway all happened within the first 3 years of the war and should all be in the first 2 sets.

Having the Iowa was unnecessary as well as anything 1943 or later. Those of you pandering for F8F Bearcats, Montanas, and Alaska's might as well be asking for the USS Nimitz and Ohio class subs while you're at it and throw in some F-14's and stuff that was never built.

There is more than enough material in World War 2 naval history that we do not need a Reserves set for WaS.

[XAos]

Since the set 1 unit list is dreadfully incomplete and I would have liked to have seen these ships in set 1, let's go with:

Ajax
Achillies
Cumberland

All fought at the Battle of River Plate against Graf Spee



The Cumberland was not at the Battle of the river Plate, it was HMS.Exeter. Both Exeter & Ajax are in set-1.

[RichardBaker]

Boy, lots of good suggestions, Marcus. We have a Set 2 list in mind already, and a number of your choices match ours.

Here's a question for you: I've been looking like crazy for the German fighter that would best represent a fighter likely to be used in maritime patrol or escorting maritime strike aircraft. The best I can come up with is a Ju 88 C6, which apparently was used to escort Kondors. Me 109's were just too short-legged, and I can't find much evidence that Fw 190's were ever used in that role. What would be a better choice?


Top 25 Commons I'd like to see for Set 2
1. Type VIIC U-boat (Germany)
2. Tribal class destroyer (UK)
3. Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Sparviero torpedo bomber (Italy)
4. Flower class corvette (Canada)
5. Grumman TBF Avenger torpedo bomber (US)
6. Kawanishi N1K-J "George" fighter (Japan)
7. Heinkel He 115 torpedo bomber (Germany)
8. Benson class destroyer (US)
9. Akizuki class destroyer (Japan)
10. Curtiss SB2C Helldiver dive bomber (US)
11. Hunt class destroyer escort (UK)
12. Chance Vought F4U Corsair (US)
13. Macchi C.200 Saetta fighter (Italy)
14. E-Boat (Germany)
15. Nakajima B6N "Jill" torpedo bomber (Japan)
16. Fairey Fulmar fighter (UK)
17. Tambor class submarine (US)
18. Blackburn Skua fighter/dive bomber (UK)
19. Junkers Ju 88 fighter/bomber (Germany)
20. Yokosuka D4Y Suisei "Judy" dive bomber (Japan)
21. Spica class destroyer escort (Italy)
22. Submarine chaser (US)
23. Brewster Buffalo fighter (Australia)
24. Maurane-Saulnier M.S.406 fighter (France)
25. Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighter (Germany)

Honorable mention
Le Hardi class destroyer (France)
Bristol Type 152 Beaufort torpedo bomber (UK)
Battle class destroyer (UK)
Fairey Barracuda torpedo bomber (UK)
Agosta class submarine (France)
Gloster Gladiator fighter (UK)

[Muenchausen]

The game was planned for two releases. Set I and II. Any further releases after that depends on the sales of sets I & II. From teir point of view they probably thought if they would have released all the ships in set one to fight a smaller historical battle like the "Bismark", they might have hurt sales for set II. I dislike waiting as much as anybody but I would really like to see this game succeed and have more than two sets.

[hornet69]

i would like to see heavy and medium bombers so we can do strategic bombing missions .this game has a chance to be are way to getting those in play finally.

[Joisey]

Boy, lots of good suggestions, Marcus. We have a Set 2 list in mind already, and a number of your choices match ours.

Here's a question for you: I've been looking like crazy for the German fighter that would best represent a fighter likely to be used in maritime patrol or escorting maritime strike aircraft. The best I can come up with is a Ju 88 C6, which apparently was used to escort Kondors. Me 109's were just too short-legged, and I can't find much evidence that Fw 190's were ever used in that role. What would be a better choice?

Me-110's? There isn't alot to choose from. Certainly before the Battle of Britain, the Germans would have believed the Me-110 could be used as a long range escort fighter.

[Joisey]

i would like to see heavy and medium bombers so we can do strategic bombing missions .this game has a chance to be are way to getting those in play finally.


Disagree. Strategic bomber interactions with fleet battles is tangential at best. I'll take extra ships over the U.S. inventory of bombers any day.

[Stealth]

Disagree. Strategic bomber interactions with fleet battles is tangential at best. I'll take extra ships over the U.S. inventory of bombers any day.

Agreed, High level bombers proved woefully inadequate against moving ships. They have no real place in the game other than as additional patrol planes, and additional ships are HIGHLY preferable to that.

Just say NO to High level bombers.

[Sean-Khan]

Well, Flying fortresses and Lancasters WERE used to bomb ships - not often but they were. But that's only a thin line of connection; I'd love to have some extension to this game - 'war at skies'. We're already getting lots of air units, and with little additions, we could easily have full air combat game!

Der Leiter already created rules for 'Battle of Britain' with AAM aircraft. While I was interested, I just didn't want to invest that much to expensive AAM aircrat... This game makes this kind of games well possible!

[CruorVult]

110s weren't so much an escort as an anti-bomber fighter/destroyer. other than a variety of floatplanes that could double as a weak fighter, the 109 is probably the best bet. the 109 also already has range comparable to a sea hurricane or seafire, without considering drop tanks. that a handful of 109T carrier variants were produced doesn't hurt, even though the carrier gear was mostly removed.

as far as level bombing goes, the japanese were known to employ it against naval targets frequently during their first year against the allies. their torpedo bombers usually included bombsights too. it didn't work too well but they weren't quite sure and having the flexibility to bomb ground and naval targets was a neat idea at the time

[Belisarius]

Boy, lots of good suggestions, Marcus. We have a Set 2 list in mind already, and a number of your choices match ours.

Here's a question for you: I've been looking like crazy for the German fighter that would best represent a fighter likely to be used in maritime patrol or escorting maritime strike aircraft. The best I can come up with is a Ju 88 C6, which apparently was used to escort Kondors. Me 109's were just too short-legged, and I can't find much evidence that Fw 190's were ever used in that role. What would be a better choice?

I'm not a Luftwaffe expert, but from what I can gather, the previous comments are pretty accurate. There's not a lot of choice for the Germans. CruorVult mentions the bf 109T carrier versions of the 109 intended for the Graf Zeppelin (and if we wanted to get into more "what if?" speculation, you could go with the 109T's replacement, the Me 155A). The Me 110D series was intended for long-range use, and many were stationed in Norway, so that's a possibility. The Fw 190 F-8 did have maritime attack variants, as did the Me 410 (B-5 and B-6).

[Bellerophon]

I would love to see Q-ships!

[horacus]

It isn't tooo soon to talk about set 2, and even we haven't got set 1???

[Lynx7725]

It isn't tooo soon to talk about set 2, and even we haven't got set 1???
Heck no, I'm surprised we aren't talking about Set 3 already! :D

[dracos42]

Agreed, High level bombers proved woefully inadequate against moving ships. They have no real place in the game other than as additional patrol planes, and additional ships are HIGHLY preferable to that.

Just say NO to High level bombers.

No to strategic bombers as strategic bombers. Lots of medium and heavy bomber types were also used as patrol planes, and could be included in this game.

I can imagine house rules for strategic bombing of land targets. Something like the US Navy's raids on the Japanese home islands in 1945, with B-29's joining in the strikes? Or a raid against an island, with the heavy bombers assigned to bomb the enemy's airfields.

[unc_samurai]

I'm not a Luftwaffe expert, but from what I can gather, the previous comments are pretty accurate. There's not a lot of choice for the Germans. CruorVult mentions the bf 109T carrier versions of the 109 intended for the Graf Zeppelin (and if we wanted to get into more "what if?" speculation, you could go with the 109T's replacement, the Me 155A). The Me 110D series was intended for long-range use, and many were stationed in Norway, so that's a possibility. The Fw 190 F-8 did have maritime attack variants, as did the Me 410 (B-5 and B-6).

I believe that the Kriegsmarine originally ordered Hs123's fitted with arresting hooks as a stopgap measure until a suitable Ju88 would be ready.

[Diamondback]

It is worth noting that when the RFP's were issued for the B-17 and B-29, they were conceived for hunting hostile shipping bound for the US coast, having the option for either long range or high cargo tonnage. I could see B-17s and B-29s as "patrol bombers" for hunting ships (a B-17 unloading several 500-pounders from above AA-range of Yamato would have to hurt it SOME), or for scouting, or maybe for "base reduction" jobs.

Speaking of, how about having shipyards and airbases in Set II, like the HQ/Supply Depot/Ammo Dump minis in Reserves? Perhaps add an HQ, too?

And for a dedicated A&AM: War in the Air game, sign me up as a +1. Land, sea and air all interacting in one huge scenario would kick "arsenal", in my admittedly less-than-humble opinion. (Then again, I am known to favor long, all-day slugfest scenarios...)

[Belisarius]

It is worth noting that when the RFP's were issued for the B-17 and B-29, they were conceived for hunting hostile shipping bound for the US coast, having the option for either long range or high cargo tonnage. I could see B-17s and B-29s as "patrol bombers" for hunting ships (a B-17 unloading several 500-pounders from above AA-range of Yamato would have to hurt it SOME), or for scouting, or maybe for "base reduction" jobs.

It would only hurt if it hit. Dropping bombs on a moving target from 20,000 feet isn't a recipe for success, as the U.S. found out early in the war.

I would think that, this being a naval game and all, we should probably focus a little more on the ships before delving into strategic bombing. But I'm crazy that way.... :)

[XAos]

It would only hurt if it hit. Dropping bombs on a moving target from 20,000 feet isn't a recipe for success, as the U.S. found out early in the war.

True, but they found that out by trying it a few times. So B-17's were used at the battle of Midway.
By the time the B-29 was developed the USAF had given up wasting effort on this type of target. So the game doesn't need a B-29.
Set one isnt even out yet!!!:D I think I need to see how playable the fleets of set one are first before I make any suggestions.....Except defanatly the Missouri:D
A/H will start design of set-2 months before it actually releases. They may already have started that design. If we delay giving suggestions another month it may be too late to have any affect on whats in the next set.

[Sean-Khan]

A/H will start design of set-2 months before it actually releases. They may already have started that design. If we delay giving suggestions another month it may be too late to have any affect on whats in the next set.

Maybe we should put up a poll to give more clear picure of this to the developers? :) I'm afraid that set might be going into production already, as the process is pretty lengthy... But we can try to have an effect!

I would have put the poll up myself, but I'm afraid I can't create enough options to help majority of people to sound off their opinions. What I could come out with is here:

More ships for current nations (pretty obvious :D)
More planes for current nations
Separate sisterships of Iconic ships of set 1 (Tirpitz, Musashi etc.)
Heavy bombers (& other land -based aircraft)
New nations
Coastal installations (we don't know yet if we'll get some in rules of set 1!)

What else would be important to ask? I don't mind if someone else puts the poll up when we've got the questions.

[Muenchausen]

Boy, lots of good suggestions, Marcus. We have a Set 2 list in mind already, and a number of your choices match ours.

Here's a question for you: I've been looking like crazy for the German fighter that would best represent a fighter likely to be used in maritime patrol or escorting maritime strike aircraft. The best I can come up with is a Ju 88 C6, which apparently was used to escort Kondors. Me 109's were just too short-legged, and I can't find much evidence that Fw 190's were ever used in that role. What would be a better choice?

Now's the time to speak your mind. This is the first time I've seen staff ask for input on a a unit for upcoming set. It would be nice if they could do that all the time.

[MarcusAurelius]

Boy, lots of good suggestions, Marcus. We have a Set 2 list in mind already, and a number of your choices match ours.

Here's a question for you: I've been looking like crazy for the German fighter that would best represent a fighter likely to be used in maritime patrol or escorting maritime strike aircraft. The best I can come up with is a Ju 88 C6, which apparently was used to escort Kondors. Me 109's were just too short-legged, and I can't find much evidence that Fw 190's were ever used in that role. What would be a better choice?

I think the Junkers Ju 88 C6 would make a great choice for a long-range maritime patrol/escort fighter. I don't know of any other aircraft the Germans used in this role, either.

From what I've read, the Luftwaffe units that provided air cover during the Channel Dash primarily flew Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighters. But even flying from bases in Cherbourg and Normandy, the Fw 190 and Bf 109 simply didn't have the range to fly extended duty in the Atlantic.

[TheJudge]

Agreed, JU88 is a good choice and it would be different than having another Me109 in the genre and JU88's were much better suited to long range missions.

Having 4 engine bombers doesn't interest me. They had very little effect on any battles. In fact, I can't even recall a B-17 even hitting a Japanese warship.

Planes should be reasonably limited in the game, I'd much rather see more ships than extra, little used planes so my advice would be to have:

Italian torpedo plane and a fighter
SBD (check)
Devestator(check)
Wildcat(Check)
Corsair
Catalina(check)
Hellcat
Avenger
P-38 (shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other plane as I recall)
Helldiver (maybe, not really necessary, this is where you get into the extras)

Zero (check)
Kate
Val
Betty
Oscar
Kamikaze's (this may be controversial but should be included and could be any plane technically but another model would be good)
Japanese float planes (scouting, recon, etc)

JU88
Kondor (check)
Stuka(check)

SeaFire
Sea Hurricane (check)
Beaufighter torpedo plane
Swordfish (check)

France, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, Dutch could possibly get maybe 1-2 planes each at most to represent them and in many cases, it likely would be a British or American plane anyway. It depends on how big land based aircraft are in the game.

Im sure there are a few Ive left out but again, id hate to open a pack and get more than 1 set of planes in the pack, I want a lot of ships!

[TheCygnysGuardian]

Heck no, I'm surprised we aren't talking about Set 3 already! :D

Yay! Set III!

Japan / JMSDF
JDS DDG-177 Atago - Atago Class Guided Missile Destroyer
JDS SS 590 Oyashio - Oyashio Class Submarine
JDS DDH-143 Shirane - Shirane Class Helicopter Destroyer
P-3C - Maritime Patrol Aircraft
F-15K - Fighter-Bomber
UH-60J - Multi-Purpose Helicopter

Germany / Deutsche Marine
F220 Hamburg - Sachsen Class Anti-Air Frigate
S71 Gepard - Gepard Class Fast Attack Craft
U31 - Type 212 Submarine
Breguet Br.1150 Atlantic - Long-range Reconnaissance Aircraft
Sea King Mk41 - Anti-Submarine Helicopter

United States / United States Navy
CVN-68 USS Nimitz - Nimitz Class Supercarrier
LHD-1 USS Wasp - Wasp Class Amphibious Assault Ship
DDG-51 USS Arleigh Burke - Arleigh Burke Class Guided Missile Destroyer
SSBN-726 USS Ohio - Ohio Class Ballistic Missile Submarine
F-14 Tomcat - Fighter & Tactical Reconnaissance Aircraft
F/A-18 Hornet - Strike Fighter

[Joisey]

Speaking of, how about having shipyards and airbases in Set II, like the HQ/Supply Depot/Ammo Dump minis in Reserves? Perhaps add an HQ, too?



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Sean-Khan]

Wow, I don't get how I missed Richard's post, sometimes I'm much too hasty reader :o It's really good to see we're being heard!

A word about heavy bombers again - I don't know if land bases are abstract concept in this game, but doesn't their existence already justify bombers - They operate from land bases and they can destroy such before moving into bombing ships!

Personally, I'd love that 109, but I understand if they would be too unrealistic in overseas operations.

[MarcusAurelius]

One more note on German maritime patrol/escort aircraft.

The Luftwaffe did use the Arado Ar 196 for reconnaissance and submarine hunts over the Bay of Biscay. More than 500 were built by 1944. However, the slow floatplane was no match for Beaufighters and Mosquitos — and the Junkers Ju 88 C6 proved far more effective for anti-shipping patrols and escort missions.

For War at Sea, I'd much rather have the Ju 88 C6 instead of the Ar 196.

[RichardBaker]

I try to keep up when I can:-). No promises about how much I can influence a proposed Set 2 list at this point, or whether I'd go along with the results of a poll. We have a start on some initial Set 2 design, but we're finessing a unit here and a unit there and looking at several different options the exact timing and composition of a Set 2 release.

I think there might be a place for a big 4-engined land-based bomber, but I think they'd be best in the game as ASW and reconnaissance platforms. Planes like the Handley-Page Halifax or the B-24 saw a lot of use in those roles and played critical roles in the Battle of the Atlantic. They weren't *great* ASW platforms, but they scored a modest number of kills and got a good number of "assists" too. They'd probably work a lot like the Catalina in Set 1, but they'd have better defense and somewhat worse ASW.





Wow, I don't get how I missed Richard's post, sometimes I'm much too hasty reader :o It's really good to see we're being heard!

A word about heavy bombers again - I don't know if land bases are abstract concept in this game, but doesn't their existence already justify bombers - They operate from land bases and they can destroy such before moving into bombing ships!

Personally, I'd love that 109, but I understand if they would be too unrealistic in overseas operations.

[Major Adler]

you are kidding...right...you mean you cannot think of some better multi engine aircraft to put into a naval warfare set???...we better not see the Halifax or B-24 until set 4...

[MarcusAurelius]

you are kidding...right...you mean you cannot think of some better multi engine aircraft to put into a naval warfare set???...we better not see the Halifax or B-24 until set 4...

I think the B-24 would make a great unit for War at Sea. The RAF Coastal Command and the Royal Canadian Air Force deployed Liberators for anti-submarine patrols starting in 1941. As the only aircraft with the range to close the Atlantic Gap, it was considered indispensable.

Almost 1,000 B-24 patrol bombers served in the U.S. Navy, where they were known as the PB4Y-1. And in 1943, Consolidated introduced the PB4Y-2 Privateer — a dedicated, long-range patrol bomber based on the B-24.

As for the Handley Page Halifax, it was operated by squadrons of the RAF Coastal Command for anti-submarine and reconnaissance patrols throughout the war.

[Legbiter]

I believe that the Kriegsmarine originally ordered Hs123's fitted with arresting hooks as a stopgap measure until a suitable Ju88 would be ready.

"Nitpick" you mean Ju-87, I believe. Adaptable as it was, landing a Ju-88 on a carrier would have been tricky.

[Legbiter]

I think the B-24 would make a great unit for War at Sea. The RAF Coastal Command and the Royal Canadian Air Force deployed Liberators for anti-submarine patrols starting in 1941. As the only aircraft with the range to close the Atlantic Gap, it was considered indispensable.

Almost 1,000 B-24 patrol bombers served in the U.S. Navy, where they were known as the PB4Y-1. And in 1943, Consolidated introduced the PB4Y-2 Privateer — a dedicated, long-range patrol bomber based on the B-24.

As for the Handley Page Halifax, it was operated by squadrons of the RAF Coastal Command for anti-submarine and reconnaissance patrols throughout the war.

Totally agree. The Liberator and Short Sunderland were war-winning patrol bombers, with Catalinas and Lockheed Hudsons [sorry, can't remember what our Gallant Allies call these] filling the not-losing-the-war gap. I think we NEED these four aircraft for the North Atlantic, and to a lesser extent, Pacific and Indian Ocean.

[Sean-Khan]

I think there might be a place for a big 4-engined land-based bomber, but I think they'd be best in the game as ASW and reconnaissance platforms. Planes like the Handley-Page Halifax or the B-24 saw a lot of use in those roles and played critical roles in the Battle of the Atlantic. They weren't *great* ASW platforms, but they scored a modest number of kills and got a good number of "assists" too. They'd probably work a lot like the Catalina in Set 1, but they'd have better defense and somewhat worse ASW.

Oo, getting one of those (or both) would be magnificent :D

[unc_samurai]

"Nitpick" you mean Ju-87, I believe. Adaptable as it was, landing a Ju-88 on a carrier would have been tricky.
Yeah, I didn't catch it until you said something. That being said, when the Graf Zeppelin is released, we could build a scenario where they load Ju-88s and try and make a sneak carrier raid on Washington.

[Stealth]

Yeah, I didn't catch it until you said something. That being said, when the Graf Zeppelin is released, we could build a scenario where they load Ju-88s and try and make a sneak carrier raid on Washington.

With a heavy-water A-Bomb ?:eek:

[Major Adler]

I hope this does not turn into a submarine warfare game...and if not...we really do not need the Halifax or B-24 in the next set...certainly surface warfare is the priority with this game (I thought)...and in that case...any aircraft slot filled by the Halifax or B-24 would be better spent...the CAT can fill the ASW slot for the allies for now...

better choices for those slots in set no.2 would be...the Beaufighter and the nose heavy B-25...

[Major Adler]

would love to see the following...

BB Conte di Cavour
CA Zara
CL Garibaldi
torpedo boat (not MTB) "Lira"
corvet "Gabbiano" w/20mm AA upgrade
torpedo bomber SM-79
fighter SM.202

[unc_samurai]

With a heavy-water A-Bomb ?:eek:

I was thinking more of a twist on the Doolittle raid. Sadly, German bombers wouldn't have the range to try and crash-land somewhere in Mexico or Argentina.

[kiwi_big_bear]

Hmm am I missing something. IS this going to be a ships based game or a ships for air fodder game?

I was hoping for more ships for the nations already in the game and maybe a couple of new Nations.

Canada
New Zealand
Russia
maybe the Polish (nothing agaisnt them )

not realy any axis one to rate a mention

There has been alot of good suggestions for new ships and units, form a longevity of the game I can understand why we would have to wait for each new set of those iconic ships we all know.

Its just good bus. sence. So letsjust wait and see what set 1 has and then push for set 3, cause we know set 2 is all but done and dusted by now.

Just my thoughts. Oh and for A/H to ask us for our imput would be just the best thing for any game ever!!

Shawn

[Muenchausen]

Its just good bus. sence. So lets just wait and see what set 1 has and then push for set 3, cause we know set 2 is all but done and dusted by now.

Just my thoughts. Oh and for A/H to ask us for our imput would be just the best thing for any game ever!!

Shawn

I disagree with your analagy of set II release. These sets are now 6 months apart. When AAM was released every three months, you were right, before a set was released they were already producing the next set. But with being six months apart, that gives them more time to evaluate our reaction and consider our input and thus, make changes as they deem appropriate. So its not inconceiveable that they might listen to some of our suggestions. Thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[unc_samurai]

Naval warfare has a smaller variety of units to work with. There are innumerable variations of tanks and infantry you can produce (see the 10,000 Shermans taking up my rare slots), but there were only 10 U.S. battleships comissioned during the war, of 3 different classes. Granted, they could extend the list to conjectural ships. I wouldn't mind seeing the Graf Zeppelin, the Montana, and some pre-war ships. I would even love a WWI spinoff - unless that's treading too much on GHQ's toes.

My point before i started rambling was the smaller pool of ships versus land warfare units means they don't need to release as many sets, especially given the cost of buying these minis.

[Major Adler]

why suggest early war junk to fill slots for nations in set no.2?...

the Fulmar , Skua and MC.200 ???...no way...maybe they should have been in set no.1...but not set no.2...if people think this stuff is actually colectable as models...then maybe use set no. 4 to fill in the gaps missed...

for the Brits in set no.2 we need...

HMS KGV
HMS Warspite
HMS Victorious
HMS Illustrious
HMS London
HMS Repulse
HMS Archer
HMS Dido
HMS Edinburgh (this one is for you Legbiter)
Short Sunderland
HMS Sheffield
HMS Gurkha
HMS Hotspur
HMS Campblestown
Barracuda
Seafire
Beaufighter

if the Italians get a plane it should be the MC.202...the MC.200 should have been in the first set...

[Predator666]

I didn't think I'd see this so soon! The game isn't out and people are already planning what they want. But have all your fun of telling what you want.

I would like them to put the Prinz Eugen in and I'm not even sure if I'm going to be playing this game.

[Major Adler]

I really do not think that what we post here has much to do with what we get...set 2 moulds may already be being made...

but I cannot beleave that some on this forum are suggesting slots be filled with junk...

take the Italians...no aircraft in the first set...and now a suggestion that they be given the MC.200?...they should get the MC.202

for the Brits...the Fulmar?...you have to be kidding...as Legbiter put it...the Fulmar would have trouble catching a Me109 even if it was lashed to the ground...should get the Seafire...

[Joisey]

I think the B-24 would make a great unit for War at Sea. The RAF Coastal Command and the Royal Canadian Air Force deployed Liberators for anti-submarine patrols starting in 1941. As the only aircraft with the range to close the Atlantic Gap, it was considered indispensable.

Almost 1,000 B-24 patrol bombers served in the U.S. Navy, where they were known as the PB4Y-1. And in 1943, Consolidated introduced the PB4Y-2 Privateer — a dedicated, long-range patrol bomber based on the B-24.

As for the Handley Page Halifax, it was operated by squadrons of the RAF Coastal Command for anti-submarine and reconnaissance patrols throughout the war.

Your point is well taken, however, I side with the school of thought that believes that bombers hunting subs has all the fun of shooting fish in a barrel. It's just too one sided to make for a good two player game. Perhaps you are on to something for a good solitaire scenario, though.

[MarcusAurelius]

I really do not think that what we post here has much to do with what we get...set 2 moulds may already be being made...

but I cannot beleave that some on this forum are suggesting slots be filled with junk...

take the Italians...no aircraft in the first set...and now a suggestion that they be given the MC.200?...they should get the MC.202

for the Brits...the Fulmar?...you have to be kidding...as Legbiter put it...the Fulmar would have trouble catching a Me109 even if it was lashed to the ground...should get the Seafire...

Obviously, no two people are going to want the exact same units. I'd like to eventually see both the Macchi C.200 Saetta and C.202 Folgore. But I'd simply prefer the C.200 first. It was Italy's primary fighter until 1942. And it was the only Italian fighter that served throughout the war, with more than 1,000 built.

The same goes for the Fairey Fulmar and Blackburn Skua. Both of these are historically important aircraft that I think should be represented in War at Sea. The Seafire and Barracuda were clearly better aircraft — but they weren't available until much later in the war. (The Seafire, for example, was introduced into service in 1944.)

[MarcusAurelius]

Your point is well taken, however, I side with the school of thought that believes that bombers hunting subs has all the fun of shooting fish in a barrel. It's just too one sided to make for a good two player game. Perhaps you are on to something for a good solitaire scenario, though.

It's impossible to say exactly how submarines will perform in War at Sea until we see the full rules and stats for all units. But if the historical record is any indication, I don't think subs will exactly be defenseless against aircraft.

German U-boats were equipped with 20mm and 37mm Flak guns for antiair defense. According to uboat.net, they shot down more than 120 Allied aircraft during WWII. The list is dominated by patrol bombers — including the B-24 Liberator (23 recorded losses), Wellington (22), Sunderland (12), Catalina (7), Halifax (7), Hudson (5), Mosquito (5) and others.

By comparison, the sources I've seen estimate that Allied aircraft sank 250 German U-boats during the war. While attacking fighters and bombers clearly had the upper hand against submarines, they were also vulnerable.

[TheJudge]

The Italians definitely need a fighter and torpedo plane and yes, they already have a giant aircraft carrier, it's shaped like a boot and is dotted with cities.

As for what should be in set 2, people will have different opinions but to keep it simple and balanced, we should get ships and planes not in set 1 that will allow us to play scenarios from early war, very important battles.

As the British did not build a single new battleship, they have a ton of them to choose from, many of which were World War 1 based, Queen Elizabeths were good ships and updated, KGV's, Nelson and Rodney, they all belong in the game. Obviously the Germans will get Tirpitz and Gneisenau and then more subs and a few cruisers and destroyers but will the French get more ships? Italy? I certainly hope so as France got really dissed in this set, as did the Italians, they both had pretty powerful fleets and not many people know this but when war broke out, Italy had the largest submarine force in the world!

Set 2 should be Europe heavy with attention to Russia also, they did have a fleet that was very active in the Black Sea and Baltic when able to be.

I also am a realist and know full well that some stuff will be excluded in favor of giving units to the major navies, US, Japan, and UK and other fleets will be left woefully incomplete and will just have a token representation in the game much like the ground game has. :(

In the grand scheme of things though, just give me a naval minis game to play! :)

[Major Adler]

I beleave that the Seafire's first operational carrier missions were flow during "Operation Torch"...1942 I should think...

another point is that...a Brit slot in the next set does not have to be wasted on a carrier fighter...since they made extensive used of the Wildcat , Corsair and Hellcat...but they should get the Seafire...

as for the Italian MC.202...it was operational with the 17th and 6th air groups in Lybia in 1941...

[MarcusAurelius]

I beleave that the Seafire's first operational carrier missions were flow during "Operation Torch"...1943 I should think...

another point is that...a Brit slot in the next set does not have to be wasted on a carrier fighter...since they made extensive used of the Wildcat , Corsair and Hellcat...but they should get the Seafire...

as for the Italian MC.202...it was operational with the 17th and 6th air groups in Lybia in 1941...

I stand corrected. I was thinking of the Supermarine Seafire III, which didn't see its first action until 1944. All the reference I've seen confirms that the Seafire II entered service in mid-1942, flying from HMS Furious in Operation Torch.

I've read that the C.200 Saetta was originally supposed to be replaced outright by the C.202 after only one year in production — but Alfa Romeo couldn't build enough engines for the C.202 and both aircraft served together from 1941 on. I'd definitely like to have the C.202 for 1942 Mediterranean scenarios like Operation Vigorous, Operation Harpoon and Operation Pedestal.

[Joisey]

It's impossible to say exactly how submarines will perform in War at Sea until we see the full rules and stats for all units. But if the historical record is any indication, I don't think subs will exactly be defenseless against aircraft.

German U-boats were equipped with 20mm and 37mm Flak guns for antiair defense. According to uboat.net, they shot down more than 120 Allied aircraft during WWII. The list is dominated by patrol bombers — including the B-24 Liberator (23 recorded losses), Wellington (22), Sunderland (12), Catalina (7), Halifax (7), Hudson (5), Mosquito (5) and others.

By comparison, the sources I've seen estimate that Allied aircraft sank 250 German U-boats during the war. While attacking fighters and bombers clearly had the upper hand against submarines, they were also vulnerable.

That was probably u-boats making the best of a bad situation. I can't imagine a u boat commander would willingly get into a gun duel with a patrol bomber if he could help it. Must be u-boats that got caught surprised on the surface. A u-boat was just too vulnerable to being holed by machine gun fire.

[MarcusAurelius]

That was probably u-boats making the best of a bad situation. I can't imagine a u boat commander would willingly get into a gun duel with a patrol bomber if he could help it. Must be u-boats that got caught surprised on the surface. A u-boat was just too vulnerable to being holed by machine gun fire.

Agreed. From everything I've read, the Germans eventually realized that the best defense against aircraft was spotting them in time to dive.

[swarbs]

How about Italian frogmen. If there are already Motor torpedo boats, why not this frogmen too, I believe they attacked British battleships in Alexandria with good effect at least once. Maybe they'd only be worth playing in a historical scenario. Perhaps they'd be more appropriate as an SA for an Italian submarine, I don't know, but it would still be interesting.

[Joisey]

There's so much I want before getting to such niche units as Italian frogmen.

[Diamondback]

The Germans also built special flak-trap U-boats with like 4x normal AA to act as escorts for regular boats headed out to or in from their patrols.

[swarbs]

There's so much I want before getting to such niche units as Italian frogmen.

I don't think a frogmen unit is any more a niche unit than asking for multiple ships of the same class. There are already a bunch of battlships in set one, there will be more in set two, why not increase the diversity of unit types rather than trying to increase the diversity of units within a type. Besides, whatever new capitol ships are in the second set someone is going to be angry that thier favorite ship isn't in there.

[Zhukov]

Prinz Eugen whatever it was

Do we have le Tirpitz?

Something French, the Paris ship. Only one I know.

Something Dutch.

Corsair.

Lots of Pacific.

[Zhukov]

To the Italians, I dont care for them, I dont want to see them in this game either. I dont want to have to give all my ships glass bottems.

:D

[Legbiter]

To the Italians, I dont care for them, I dont want to see them in this game either. I dont want to have to give all my ships glass bottems.

:D

How about Italian frogmen. If there are already Motor torpedo boats, why not this frogmen too, I believe they attacked British battleships in Alexandria with good effect at least once. Maybe they'd only be worth playing in a historical scenario. Perhaps they'd be more appropriate as an SA for an Italian submarine, I don't know, but it would still be interesting.

Frogmen or Human Torpedos, the latter probably easier to model in Naval minis scale, is a BRILLIANT idea. Italian frogmen were VERY effective in the Mediterranean, first on the Axis side, attacking British ships in Alexandria, then again attacking British ships in Gibraltar [we never figured out they were frogman attacks during the war, because they were carried out from a wrecked freighter in Spanish waters], and then later attacking Italian Social Republic/Nazi units [the never-quite-completed Italian aircraft carrier Aquila was finally done in by Italian co-belligerent frogmen].

[Autarch]

Hmmm, I'm not for frogmen in this game. You couldn't use them in open ocean battles plus there really isn't a way to defend against or engage them. What other units would this need to play, anti-submarine nets? It's really too passive an element. It either works or it doesn't. It falls below the scope of this game.