[Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by downer

It might just work. After all, TL 8 carrier groups are not primarily a weapon of sea warfare, they are a way of projecting air superiority. If that is not what you want, you wouldn't need them. The specialized planes outlined above would be sufficient to sweep the seas clean of battleships and carriers, and might serve as a deterrent to enemy naval deployment, and convoi warfare is a matter of lighter units anyway.

That's only true insofar as you draw a sharp line between naval aviation and sea warfare, or if you read far too much into the shortage of recent serious naval warfare. Carriers are the premiere weapons of sea warfare, because for a multitude of reasons airplanes are much better strike and recon assets than shipboard weapons and sensors can be.

Of course, if you don't need to annihilate an enemy navy you can also use them to project air superiority in support of land operations. They're good for that too.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm not saying they can't have carriers. I'm just reluctant to give them special bonuses in the naval area, since I think a +1 aerospace TL (or nearly so) is pretty scary already.

You're giving them the largest economy on the planet, I gather, paired with a merely average navy. Do you mean 'average' for a great power?

I'd suggest that their navy would lean heavily to light carriers. Assuming that they can operate their favored aircraft off relatively small decks. They can lean on the 'just plain better than you' factor to compensate for the relatively small aircraft complement. A light carrier is roughly cruiser-equivalent so having a number of them doesn't constitute a huge navy, but if your planes are overwhelmingly superior each one is probably at least as scary as anyone else's fleet carrier.

And if they do get in a serious scrap they might roll out escort carriers: dirt cheap, slow light carriers designed for convoy protection.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

You're giving them the largest economy on the planet, I gather, paired with a merely average navy. Do you mean 'average' for a great power?

Largest internal economy, yes. Not the largest external trade exchange - they're the second most autonomous (in the economy & resources department) political entity (the first being the Justicariate). And yes, luxuries and tourism are likely to have a large ratio in their external economy.

When I said average, I meant, in City Stats terms, that their Military Budget Factor dedicated to the navy is no higher than that of the average seafaring nation's MBF (perhaps even lower). Sure, their navy is larger than that simply due to having a large population in the first place. But I don't want to give them a munchkin navy, since due to the Levy mechanics (representing martial training and piloting tradition) they already have a freaky de facto budget for infantry and air.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I'd suggest that their navy would lean heavily to light carriers. Assuming that they can operate their favored aircraft off relatively small decks. They can lean on the 'just plain better than you' factor to compensate for the relatively small aircraft complement. A light carrier is roughly cruiser-equivalent so having a number of them doesn't constitute a huge navy, but if your planes are overwhelmingly superior each one is probably at least as scary as anyone else's fleet carrier.

And if they do get in a serious scrap they might roll out escort carriers: dirt cheap, slow light carriers designed for convoy protection.

With lots of craft having VTOL capability, that should work.

[downer]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That's only true insofar as you draw a sharp line between naval aviation and sea warfare, or if you read far too much into the shortage of recent serious naval warfare. Carriers are the premiere weapons of sea warfare, because for a multitude of reasons airplanes are much better strike and recon assets than shipboard weapons and sensors can be.

Of course, if you don't need to annihilate an enemy navy you can also use them to project air superiority in support of land operations. They're good for that too.

My point was simply, that if you don't need to get close to your enemy, but only need to break anything he extends in your direction, you don't need a carrier. In WWII, the US had all their carriers commited in the Pacific, but where quite capable of keeping U-boats under threat in the Atlantic from land bases, coordinating their efforts with small surface units. The same strategy is feasible against larger targets. You only need a carrier if you have to take your air power elsewhere. And that is not self-evidently necessary for naval warfare, but it is for aerial warfare across oceans.

[fredtheobviouspseudonym]

Originally Posted by downer

. . . you don't need a carrier. In WWII, the US had all their carriers commited in the Pacific, but where quite capable of keeping U-boats under threat in the Atlantic from land bases, coordinating their efforts with small surface units. The same strategy is feasible against larger targets. You only need a carrier if you have to take your air power elsewhere. And that is not self-evidently necessary for naval warfare, but it is for aerial warfare across oceans.

Not exactly.

Fleet carriers -- yes.

However, by late 1943 much of the Allied (NOT US) ASW effort in the Atlantic was carried by the so-called "escort carriers." These could project air power into regions not covered by short-based aircraft. (See William T. Y'Blood's "Hunter Killer" for details.)

Even in areas which could be covered by shore-side based ASW air the CVEs (escort carriers) were useful. It might take several hours to whistle up a PB4Y from Newfoundland or Iceland or Northern Ireland to respond to a possible U-boat contact in mid-Atlantic; if an escort carrier was present you could get aircraft to sighting location much more quickly. This time saving could translate into a kill vs. a "there's lots of ocean out here & no U-boat, Chief."

Remember that the USN was marginally involved in Atlantic ASW. It made more sense for the Royal Navy & Canadians to cover that area of operations while the USN went after the Japanese. IIRC by early 1943 the USN was contributing three percent only of Atlantic escorts. Note also that a very large number of escort carriers were US-built and British-manned. (I think a few were Canadian-manned, but might be wrong.)

Before the torches & pitchforks come out I should acknowledge that I am an American and have had family members in the USN. However, I also, in the interests of truth, have to acknowledge where our allies carried the lion's share of the load.

Back to Ms. Molokh's point -- it might be possible for an island nation to get by without a major navy if certain odd political arrangements occur. From 1945 to c. 1985 the Japanese navy (excuse me, marine self-defense force) could be fairly small and short-ranged, despite Japan's major need for imports. The US had a vested interest in Japanese prosperity (and still does, IMHO) so the USN basically provided Japan's sea lanes with security. Alternatively, if the nation is pretty much self-sufficient in vital commodities, it could get by with shore-based, relatively short ranged air as anti-invasion forces, and let the relatively more expensive long-range sea-based air (read carriers) go hang.

Other options -- are there space-based military assets in this scenario? While they would be pretty useless against submarines, they could be decisive against surface & air threats.

Other possible factors -- is the island nation needing only fairly small quantities of vital materials? Then cargo/tanker submarines would make sense and be no less tough to find/kill than the enemy's attack boats. (There would be more chance to find them as they approach port -- but then fairly short-range ASW assets could work against the raiders.)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

The 'logistics unit' is inseperable, immune to things like Raids, and doesn't do the job of a logistics unit in the first place. A real logistics force keeps your element supplied. The shipboard supplies give the ship a period between going out of supply and being short on supplies, but it doesn't magically fetch fresh munitions when it uses them up. To restock, either the entire ship has to return to a base, or an actual supply vessel has to come out to it.

I'm not saying they can magically fetch fresh munitions. On the contrary, they have to haul as many supplies as they need for their endurance. But it seems like in MC rules the ability to store supplies beyond one month is never included in the default unit cost.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

By not using Mass Combat, or by applying slash and burn to Mass Combat rules until the ones left actually fit the situation.

Just curious, is Mass Combat one of those products like Magic that calls a lot of hate here or something?

[Whitestreak]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Just curious, is Mass Combat one of those products like Magic that calls a lot of hate here or something?

I think that the bigest problem is that it seems that you're trying to use Mass Combat for things that were not designed into the rules.

Many of the things you seem to be doing are best laid out by GM fiat, not referring to Mass Combat. Remember, MC is intended to help GMs and players settle largish battles - it's not really set up to resolve campaigns, politics or economics.

There are a couple of resources available for campaigns, and when I get back from the dentist's office, I'll dig through them and give some pointers.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by fredtheobviouspseudonym

Not exactly.

Yes.

Remember that the USN was marginally involved in Atlantic ASW. It made more sense for the Royal Navy & Canadians to cover that area of operations while the USN went after the Japanese.


Before the torches & pitchforks come out I should acknowledge that I am an American and have had family members in the USN. However, I also, in the interests of truth, have to acknowledge where our allies carried the lion's share of the load.

I'm sure you are too pessimistic about those torches and pitchforks, to the point that I'll add that "the USN went after the Japanese" with all its fleet carriers - plus the USS Robin. Which, despite its code name, actually was the HMS Victorious.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Whitestreak

I think that the bigest problem is that it seems that you're trying to use Mass Combat for things that were not designed into the rules.

Making armies? O_o

Originally Posted by Whitestreak

Many of the things you seem to be doing are best laid out by GM fiat, not referring to Mass Combat. Remember, MC is intended to help GMs and players settle largish battles - it's not really set up to resolve campaigns, politics or economics.

Not using it to resolve politics or economics (except for unit pricing, but that's kinda the point of MC).