That UK list is just the DDs, with still more sub/various escort classes.
Admittedly the UK is the worst one from the majors with many of the later war subclasses missing, but his listing is very generous in that he takes the A-I classes for example as separate classes whereas the IRL difference is minimal (in WaS game terms probably nil). And yet there are 3 official cards, so it is not that bad.
On the other hand for the US the Sumner class is not listed (it has one card) while the Gearing is (0 cards), so IMHO it is not entirely fair.
That UK list is just the DDs, with still more sub/various escort classes.
Admittedly the UK is the worst one from the majors with many of the later war subclasses missing, but his listing is very generous in that he takes the A-I classes for example as separate classes whereas the IRL difference is minimal (in WaS game terms probably nil). And yet there are 3 official cards, so it is not that bad.
On the other hand for the US the Sumner class is not listed (it has one card) while the Gearing is (0 cards), so IMHO it is not entirely fair.
Probably because the RN units get shifted to the minors. Arunta, Haida, st Laurent, Van Galen, Nizam ect.
One pre war, one wartime destroyer forc each of the big 5 is a big chunk of the deck already. Trick is getting as much coverage with those slots as possible.
To me, i think we need to be filling the minor slots with 'uncommons' where we can to push the 'common' slots back to the majors.
Good luck finding "uncommons" for the minor nations that we haven't already done.
One of the issues with doing a lot of DDs is we have already done a lot of DDs for the game. It is getting very difficult to create something unique. The same could be said across the board, but DDs in particular are already available with just about any ability or combo you could want. At least for most of the main nations.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
I like Hobart, Canso, ad Mendez Nunez. Tre Kronor was not commissioned until 1947. I definitely don't like post war. Not a fan of "what if" and minor nation either.
I don't know why we are all spending so much time on minors and neutrals. They should be a small part of the overall deck IMO. I think we are being too Grognard-Historical and not enough gamer.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
Dont expect all of them but there are options. I think romania has the makings of a reasonable fleet, given the dearth of axis selections a hypothetical cruiser plus a historical destroyer and/or aircraft is a slot well spent
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.
You asked me to provide examples of DD classes I was talking about being under represented with one or none in game. I came up with more than 40, could have dug deeper but I felt that was adequate. You essentially responded by saying "no that's fake news".
1. I did not "sneak in" the Robert H. Smith destroyer mine layer class, it's a legitimate DD class we have no card for. 2. Benson/Gleaves class comes to 96 ships, many heavily involved in fighting, asking to have more than one card for them is not unreasonable. 3. Yes many of the British classes can be combined (or not) I combined some and split some just based on how they are in my card binder, could be done a variety of other ways. 4. Sumner class has two official cards from WOC/RB in Sumner and Laffey so I did not include it. This does not change the fact we have zero Gearing class.
All that being said, Flakstruk's statement about one pre war and one war time destroyer for the major nations suits me just fine. 1945 USN is already a nightmare to play against, they hardly need a 5th Iowa late war power unit. However if the majority of people really want a B-66 card I don't see the harm in making one.
I like Hobart, Canso, ad Mendez Nunez. Tre Kronor was not commissioned until 1947. I definitely don't like post war. Not a fan of "what if" and minor nation either.
I don't know why we are all spending so much time on minors and neutrals. They should be a small part of the overall deck IMO. I think we are being too Grognard-Historical and not enough gamer.
In the abstract, I'd much rather have something actually built and delivered, even if it was delivered late, than something broken up on the slip or cancelled on the drawing board. The problem is that most of those just-too-late deliveries went the USN, and would be/are wildly overpowered in the context of the rest of this game. Still, I'd rather a Midway over a Montana any day of the week, and twice on Sundays (though I would ban both from any games I host ).
I like Hobart, Canso, ad Mendez Nunez. Tre Kronor was not commissioned until 1947. I definitely don't like post war. Not a fan of "what if" and minor nation either.
I don't know why we are all spending so much time on minors and neutrals. They should be a small part of the overall deck IMO. I think we are being too Grognard-Historical and not enough gamer.
The problem is that most of those just-too-late deliveries went the USN, and would be/are wildly overpowered in the context of the rest of this game.
Totally this. For any nation. I am far, far more interested in a balanced and playable game than being a slave to history. This isn't a simulation game.