Okay ... you are looking for capitol ships? I have some that are very valid, if not ... they just never happened.
One of Churchill's greatest fears in 1940, was that the Germans would capture the French fleet and use it themselves. That gives us several options:
1. Yes, we could make "Vichy" versions of the ships, but I think we already have that. 2. Churchill feared "German" versions of those ships, so much so that he had them attacked. We "could" make Germans versions. 3. The Germans however, planned to give the French ships captured in the Mediterranean to the Italians. We "could" make Italian versions.
?? That's a LOT of capitol ships, cruisers, destroyers and subs.
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.
I hate fantasy ships in the game, and I don't think they've done a damn thing for play, except dilute the nation-specific build characteristics that made it fun. The effect is to make every faction more alike, which is dumb. Balance is overrated, especially if it means symmetrical balance.
Outside of the game, a lot of the fantasy cheese seems cool, especially given the aesthetically pleasing layouts of a lot of the cancelled BB designs of the era.
Nation specific is houserule. The only thing that comes close in the actual rules is the optionalhistorical restrictions. Even they let either side mix between nation except japan
I meant just in the sense that the fantasy ships have seemed to lead to seeing more generic builds across the board, with less of that individual "flavor" from each faction. I liked it a lot better when a German player pretty much had to take some sort of swarm fleet or lose. All the fantasy units allow you to field generic, boring "balanced" builds for most of the major countries. It used to be only US players could roll up with some boring ass fleet and expect to compete. Fantasy hasn't eliminated some of those more fun builds, but it certainly has made them less common.
No disputing there's been a greying. But thats the space in which we operate.
Edit, i wouldnt lay that solely at the feet of fantasy ships. Another big factor is the "Synergy" arguement. Constrains on giving abilities that leveraging nations inherent abilities because if the stars align just right it might be too powerful.
I'm strongly in favor of more small ships. Dozens of classes of DD's in the war with 10+ ships built and we have one card or none to represent them.
Can you please provide a few? I highly doubt this (I'm talking about the major navies, not the minors). True that we are still missing a few of the USN sub classes and maybe one-two sisterships would be nice from the big classes, but I highly doubt there are 'dozens'...
I'll reply about palatable fantasy units for myself.
1) it has to be something that was plausible for the country in question, both in a realistic sense and could they have actually made it given the situation sense.
For me this excludes Russian carriers and H-44. Those pass the line in an unforgivable capacity.
2) if it had started as planned, would it have been finished in time to participate in the war.
We've got some that are really pushing this line. Ontario, Midway and especially Vanguard. In my personal opinion, they just squeak in.
3) for air units, I want to see evidence of actual naval combat or even training to do so. Prototypes certainly count.
Basically, I greatly prefer keels laid, prototypes built or at the very least, projects that were greenlit but cancelled early on.
One thing I absolutely cannot stand is giving nation x a unit because nation y has it. Japan has been the biggest recipient of this and it drives me crazy.
I want things competitive, but at the same time I don't want to conjure up units to do so
This basically mirrors my feelings on"what if" ships. To me Midway and Vanguard should not have squeaked in. But that is life.
I am also not a big fan of operational variants. That just opens an endless Pandora's box of fan service IMO. I supported an Operational Variant of Hood and Bolzano because they did not have sister ships to do later to represent the class. I especially don't like Operational Variants when we have so many named ships - built and partially built - that are not in the game yet. As for ships with specific year/refit variants - not for me. Too much detail. Too confusing to non-historical gamers as well.
I agree with ticat on his take mostly. However I respectfully disagree over the refitted, year specific variants. They would be very useful and would make a lot of the earlier war units appealing in later year games that are now simply ignored 'cos of lesser AA or lacking radar related SAs for example (Kongo, VW comes to my mind). Obviously this is more of an issue for the 3 big navies (IJN, USN, RN) but to a certain degree it is true for all.
As for weed's list of the still missing capital ships I agree, I could addo nly a couple of Italian designs from the 30s if needed (there were quite a few). (BTW it is Hindenburg not berg and Gascogne instead of Gascoigne JFYKI).
Also for the RN BBs my vote would go for an 'R' class instead of Malaya as the QE class is a bit over represented compared to the Rs.
Admittedly I'm a USN and in particular a BB fan, but maybe USS Kentucky BB-66 could also be added to the list (with the potential of the King board's redesign of hers included):
I like both fantasy and operational variants if done well. An operational Vittorio has been explored in the past - she just didn't have an overly storied career.
Italy always gets stiffed, her sailors and officers were certainly experienced and capable. Cant always blame them for the failings of higher ups
The challenge with "operational" variants, is that we are limited to trying to recreate something that actually happened. Ships without exciting histories don't fall well into this category.
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.
I'm strongly in favor of more small ships. Dozens of classes of DD's in the war with 10+ ships built and we have one card or none to represent them.
Can you please provide a few? I highly doubt this (I'm talking about the major navies, not the minors). True that we are still missing a few of the USN sub classes and maybe one-two sisterships would be nice from the big classes, but I highly doubt there are 'dozens'...
France Bourrasque Classx12, we have 0, Brigman has done 1. L'adroit Class x14, we have 1. Le Hardi Classx8, we have 1. Chacal and Guepard class x12, we have 2, Brigman has done 1. La Melpomene Classx12, we have 0
Italy Turbine Classx8, we have 1, SWO has done 1. Group of smaller classes, Mirabellox2, Sellax2, Saurox4, Frecciax4, Folgorex4, Maestralex4, 20 ships total we have 0, Brigman has done 2 I believe.
Japan Momi Classx15, we have 0. Wakatake Classx7, we have 0. Minekaze Classx15, we have 0, Seas Ablaze did 1. Kamikaze Classx9, we have 1. Mutsuki Classx12, we have 1, SWO has done 1. Fubuki Classx24, we have 1, Brigman and Swizzle have done a couple. Fubuki class was such a leap forward in destroyer design we should really have more of them. Asashio Classx10, we have 1, Brigman did 1. Yugumo Classx19, we have 1, Brigman and SWO each did 1. Matsu Class x18, we have 1, Brigman did 1. Tachibana Class x14, we have 0, Swizzle did 1.
UK Hunt I,II,and III classx72 (+14 to minors) we have 1, Swizzle did 1. S-class(1916)x11, we have 0. V&W Classx50, we have 0. Brigman did 1. Town Classx50 (from U.S.) we have 0. SWO did one. A&B Classx18, we have 1. Brigman did 2. C&D Classx7, we have 0. E&F Classx18, we have 1. Brigman did 1. G&H Classx22, we have 1. I classx11, we have 0. Seas Ablaze did 1. Tribal Classx16, we have 1. SWO and Seas Ablaze each did 1. J classx8, we have 1. Seas ablaze did 1. K Classx8, we have 0. Brigman did 1. L Classx8, we have 1. M Classx7, we have 0. Brigman did 1. U&V Classx14, we have 0. W&Z Classx16, we have 0. C Classx8 (+26 post war), we have 0. Battle Classx7 (+19 post war), we have 1. O&P Classx16, we have 0. Seas Ablaze did 1. Q&R Classx13 (+3 to AU), we have 0.
USA Wickes Classx111, we have 1. Clemson Classx156, we have 1. SA and SWO did 1 each. Farraut Classx8, we have 1. Porter class x8, we have 1. SA and Brigman did 1. Mahan Class x18, we have 1. Bagley Classx8, we have 1. SA and Brigman did 1. Benham Classx10, we have 1, Brigman did 1. Sims Classx12, we have 1, Brigman did 1. Benson Classx30, we have 0, Brigmand did 2. Gleaves Classx66, we have 1, Swizzle did 1 Robert H Smith Classx12, we have 0. Gearing Classx30ish by end of war, we have 0.
That's about 4 dozen right there, without getting into the conjectural mess of the USSR/German DD's that may or may not have been built. In fairness I use Brigman, SA,SWO, and Swizzle card as official and a number of older custom cards exist (AntS,ND,jfkziegler,etc), however not everyone does so I listed them separate. Even including all custom card makers we have a huge number of remaining possibilities.
The challenge with "operational" variants, is that we are limited to trying to recreate something that actually happened. Ships without exciting histories don't fall well into this category.
Yeah, I really hate to see these forced into the game. I think it is clear we still have enough to do a deck without resorting to repeats of the same named ship.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
as I said if you include subclasses and every single small and old rustbucket the US Navy kept around (not to mention sneaking in separate category ships like a DM) then you have about a dozen which have no cards et all , according to your list. While as I said some reprints would be nice with different SAs, the game is not detailed enough, especially at the DD level, to make a meaningful separation between for example a Benson and a Gleaves. You need a War in the Pacific AE level grognard game to make those stand out. So while I'M not against having more cards from really big DD classes I don't think that an n+1 'almost exactly the same stat DD' would add too much to the game.
as I said if you include subclasses and every single small and old rustbucket the US Navy kept around (not to mention sneaking in separate category ships like a DM) then you have about a dozen which have no cards et all , according to your list. While as I said some reprints would be nice with different SAs, the game is not detailed enough, especially at the DD level, to make a meaningful separation between for example a Benson and a Gleaves. You need a War in the Pacific AE level grognard game to make those stand out. So while I'M not against having more cards from really big DD classes I don't think that an n+1 'almost exactly the same stat DD' would add too much to the game.
I think almost every single person added to a development team would agree with you. Maybe even every one of them. That's where the SA's come in.
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.