Patron 2010 - Silver

new game

Bjergmose vs. Enigma

I think that one of the potentially most interesting applications of the pre-1939 time period isn’t to start the actual game prior to 1940 but rather to set up an alternate starting situation for the 1940 game, in order to introduce variety from game to game (or possibly as a different type of bid from the customary IPC-based ones). The idea would be to look at the chronology of the historical pre-1940 territorial changes and to say, “Let’s assume that instead of X happening, Y happened instead,” and to alter the look of the 1940 map accordingly so that the players are starting from a different geopolitical situation. This could be done either in small, modest ways, or on a more ambitious scale. An example of a “small and modest” change would be, let’s say, assuming that the USSR never annexed the Baltic States and Bessarabia to create a buffer zone between itself and Germany. Examples of more radical changes might include: what if Franco had lost the Spanish Civil War? What if China had never seized Manchuria in 1931 and Jehol and in 1933, and had never invaded China proper in 1937?

@SS-GEN said in [House Rules] The Cruiser:

Ok. Thank you very much. Then I have those 2 correct in my game

My pleasure.

And just to add a clarification: destroyers were versatile, but they were not “small and cheap” in the same sense that a tiny plywood PT boat was cheap. Destroyers were high-powered (both in terms of speed and armaments), fully-fledged, ocean-going surface-combat vessels. They may have been smaller and cheaper and faster to build than a cruiser (to say nothing of a battleship), but they were still substantial pieces of naval construction…actual “ships”, as opposed to “craft” and “boats”, which is what “small and cheap” refers to in absolute terms rather than just relative terms.

@SS-GEN said in [House Rules] The Cruiser:

So CWO your saying Destroyers cannot do a shoreshot and carry Inf for amphibious assaults
Correct ?

I’m saying PT boats can’t conduct shore bombardment (because they carry machine guns rather than artillery) and can’t land troops in meaningful enough numbers to be considered amphibious assault troop carriers. WWII destroyers, which carried 5-inch artillery, most certainly could – and did – conduct shore bombardment in support of amphibious landings; as an example, look up the USS Corry (DD-463), which was sunk off the Normandy beaches on D-Day. And some WWII destroyers did carry small numbers of troops and put them ashore, though as far as I know this was an anomalous situation limited to the Tokyo Express at Guadalcanal (an operation, which, incidentally, has been criticized as counterproductive because it cost Japan some valuable destroyers which could have been used for more useful purposes…such as convoy escorting, a task to which Japan paid far too little attention until it realized that US subs were demolishing its vital merchant fleet).

@Argothair said in [House Rules] The Cruiser:

I have a premonition that CWO_Marc is going to weigh in to tell me I’ve got the wrong name, so feel free to call it an assault boat, or a landing craft, or a PT or AS or DE or whatever you like – the point is that it’s a small, slow, cheap, multi-purpose ship that can help lend a sense of scale and dimension to the naval wars.

It’s not so much the name that I’m wondering about, but the concept. You refer to a “small, slow, cheap, multi-purpose ship” that can “be used by countries that are small or broke or both to keep their enemies honest,” which has the ability to conduct bombardment and to grab islands. I’m not aware of any such thing existing in WWII, nor even really today. The problem isn’t with the (perfectly valid) concept of a multi-mission ship in and of itself; WWII destroyers, in my opinion, were the quintessential “maids of all work” of the war, and today’s modern frigates occupy a similar niche. The problem is the notion that a highly effective multi-mission ship could be small and cheap. Multi-mission implies multi-capability, and those capabilities have to come from somewhere, which means that they necessarily translate into physical components of a ship: weapons, engines and so forth. Adding components means adding weight and size, which means more contruction time and costs (basically, parts and labour).

A small, cheap WWII-era ship could not have capabilities which were both diverse in nature and all high in effectiveness. The best you could have is a small, cheap WWII ship which was very good at one specialized thing and had a few useful minor capabilities in other areas, but which had severe limitations outside of its specialized context. One example would be flat-bottomed landing craft, which were sometimes fitted with rocket launchers; this made them very useful for amphibious landings, but pretty useless for other applications, given their low speed, minimal range and terrible seakeeping abilities. Another example would be the fast attack craft, of which the American PT boat is a classic example: very fast, packing a considerable punch in terms of torpedoes, and carrying machine guns as auxiliary weapons. Conceptually, you can think of them as the very poor cousins of destroyers (the latter originally having been conceived in the role of “torpedo-boat destroyers”), with most of the destroyers’s capabilities jettisoned. They did carry torpedoes and sometimes depth charges, but they carried no anti-surface or anti-air guns other than .50 cal machine guns (in contrast with destroyers, which typically had 5-inch guns), their range was limited (even when fitted with lots of extra gas canisters, as was done for the MacArthur evacuation), and they were only suitable for use in coastal waters. They could not “bombard” (firing a machine gun at a shore target doesn’t count) and they couldn’t conduct amphibious landings in the same sense that landing craft could (a Higgins boat could carry 36 fully-equiped troops, in addition to its own crew, whereas PT boats typically carried a crew of about 15 people, with little room to spare).

A reference source which you might find useful to consult is the Global 1940 map analysis I posted here…

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26161/global-1940-2nd-edition-map-analysis?page=1

…because it indicates the pre-war status of the various map territories back to about 1931.

@Patchman123 said in Infantry Pieces and Numeration/Nomenclature:

Is one color for Europe 1940 and the other color for Pacific 1940?

I have no idea beyond the guess I previously made, which evidently was wrong. My primary interest is the A&A sculpts, so I’ve never paid close attention to the cardboard chips; somewone more knowledgable about A&A game history than me will have to provide an answer to your question.

@Patchman123 said in Infantry Pieces and Numeration/Nomenclature:

What do the black and white colors on the back of the A&A Facilities (A&A G40), such as Major Industrial Complexes and Minor Industrial Complexes? Also for AA guns?

What’s the difference between the two? The whites ones and the black ones?

I think they come from different editions of the game (white =1st ed, black =2nd ed, if I’m not mistaken. Note also the front of the chips in your first picture are slightly different shades of gray.