[Playtesting & Feedback] USCGC Taney

I'm perfectly calm.

Every major navy in the game has gotten some fantasy pieces. RB did it before the Teams. It's not favoritism unless one nation gets all the toys and others do not.

Ah, yes, the "Nation X has a Fantasy unit" argument... Where have i read that before!!
          RB made Germany a Major player not France, expansion did that and they got a lot of toys.
May i say nicely equipped.

France was a "Big Five" navy and RB definitely tried to fill it out. I was a supporter of "fleshing out" France because 1) it had a lot of interesting units to do that were unique and 2) it was just on the cusp of being competitive as a stand-alone nation at the end of the last WotC deck. France had a much better surface navy than the Kriegsmarine at the start of WWII up until the armistice. And arguably the French surface navy stayed superior to the Kriegsmarine surface fleet until the end of the war. (Since the Kriegsmarine surface fleet was all but wiped out by the end of 1943). For me expanding France was just an opportunity to expand the game with unique units and develop another nation option into a competitive player. There really aren't any other opportunities. I also fought (and continue to fight) hard to keep the Italian fleet competitive - especially with the Royal Navy. This is a game thing as much as a history thing. Historically, it was the Italian navy that engaged the British surface fleet, not the Germans. The British versus Italian match-up was the most balanced in the game with the WotC sets. But the Royal Navy fans wanted it to be competitive with the increasingly "fantasy" German fleet (understandable) and to be able to take on the IJN. That resulted in the Sea God decks greatly expanding the number of units and power of the RN. To me that made it essential to do whatever was possible to keep the Regia Marina competitive. Power creep? On a nation basis - yes. But it was the fantasy German navy that triggered it. Something you are okay with:

"As for Germany its a key player; on land no problem; as for a Naval game you have to go a little crazy, unless you like to play Mare Nostrum all the time"

So it's okay to go "a little crazy" with the Kriegsmarine that had a minimal (and relatively poor quality) surface fleet, but not the Italians that gave the British a very hard time, or the French that had a pretty high quality fleet at the start of the war? That is being very selective from my perspective. And yes, I think the German fans are the biggest pain in the **** when it comes to unit selection and development. But I am partially sympathetic because the game is no good if the Axis can't compete. Hence my support for Italy as well. WaS is not a simulation, it is a competition table top game with WWII "flavor." If both sides don't have an equal chance of winning the game is a failure. Most people will move on to other games. That doesn't mean each side has to have exactly the same stuff (although we are certainly getting there), but they have to have the same opportunity if you know how to play to their strengths.

My first and foremost concern throughout this project has been to maintain balance. First and foremost between Red vs Blue. That is the core of the game. Second between major competing nations because that is how a lot of people like to play it. I personally prefer "theatre balance", but I watch out for both. Minor nations I consider to be auxiliary to the majors they are allied with. That is one reason I prefer "theatre matches" because it allows the minors to participate. I like to play all the nations. I don't have a single "favorite." I like to mix and match. In our club we require everyone to bring both an Axis and an Allied fleet to each tournament regardless of the scenario. The "first player" by the coin toss gets to decide which side he will play. It is more work to prepare, but it really forces everyone to think about how the scenario will play out for each side. It also prevent our players from constantly playing the same nation and the same builds. We really have to think about our builds for each tournament. I think that helps me a lot to see how balance is being maintained (or not).

Did France need some "catch up" after the WotC decks? Absolutely yes IMO. And they had the "real" units to work with. The weakness for France is the air component. There has been a lot of push to put in some late war US Lend Lease super-aircraft that has been resisted so far. At the cost of a lot of debate. There is also a faction that wants the air component to be "native French." Obviously we have staked a middle ground so far.

The big problem for France and Italy is there isn't anything new coming natively out of those countries after 1940 (France) or 1943 (Italy). I have definitely resisted trying to fill them out somehow with late war units. I just don't think there is enough to work with even with the few drawing board units they had. Paradoxically, it is easier to play late war France (because of Vichy and lend-lease) than it is to play late-war Italy (that was totally crushed.) Both are also the infamous "swing countries" that can play either side if you wish. That adds additional complication. Our club (and the St. Louis club) solve that by mostly not allowing it. Blue cards are Allies and Red cards are Axis. No confusion. But your mileage can vary since it is optionally allowed in the rulebook. Even so, that is mainly a scenario concern in practice (since it is optional and has to be declared ahead of time) that can be controlled by the scenario rules if wanted.

You didn't mention the Soviets! I can state categorically that the Soviet navy has received a lot of love with a lot of "looking the other way historically" to make those units. The Soviets had a terrible navy. The ships were junk, the qualified officer corps was decimated by Stalin, and you can't learn good seamanship overnight. But even with all of that we have still barely been able to make it a playable nation in the game. There is only so far we can go. And there is nothing more "fantastical" than RB's Sovietskiy Soyuz with a 1942 completion date. 1962 would have been more accurate. But again, this is a game and it isn't fun if you don't have a chance to win. So the Soviets have scaled the furthest in the game by far IMO. And we didn't start that. At least we haven't succumbed to a Soviet aircraft carrier yet. But give it time!

OK focusing back on the Taney and point cost...

I got a 100point Convoy scenario in over the weekend. Build was 100pts and 25pts had to be Auxillaries (No AuxCruisers) with the rest being warships/planes/subs. In addition no ships with a Hull greater than 3 were allowed. Here's the build I used:

2x Gunston Hall 14/14
1x Neosho 4/18
1x RMS Queen Mary 12/30
2x USCGC Taney 14/44
2x HMS Ledbury 12/56
2x P-40e Warhawk 10/66
1x USS Marblehead 9/75
1x USS Cleveland 16/91
1x HMS Salmon 9/100

The build went against a Japanese Convoy and the rules were such that the objectives could only be taken by the Auxilaries, which really made them a target. The LLTs were a very real threat, but the Guard the Convoy SA was the saving grace for this build. Against the LLT's of the Japanese neither the Taney nor the Ledbury were able to strike back due to range so the Torpedoes on the Ledbury's were never even fired since the Ledbury's were targeted first in the Ledbury/Taney/Gunston Hall sectors. They did have some air that was shot down by the Warhawks and Ship AA, while the P-40's were able to survive a couple of strafing runs with mixed success.

It was interesting that the Ledbury's attracted the attention of the torpedoes while the Taney's attracted the attention of the MG's. I half expected it to be the other way around since the Taney had a better A/V/H line. The rational by my opponent was that while a successful torpedo would sink either of them, the Ledbury with more offensive capability seemed to be the bigger offensive threat once everyone closed. Having the Ledbury/Taney/Gunston in a single sector in this scenario seemed to work pretty well and kept the Gunston Hall's around to capture an objective. In hindsight I should have gone with the HMCS Prince David for a point more for the added guns, but felt that it violated the spirit though not the letter of the scenario. It would have allowed me to return fire at R3.

The Taney's did manage to outlast the Ledbury's as I expected when fielding both, and the game ended up being a loss for the Allies (I just couldn't handle some of the lucky LLT rolls in this low point game). But it was a pretty close game with no Surface Fleets being destroyed. End tally was 158-102 (Objectives: Allies-1, Axis-2).


Should the Taney be a point lower? Again, I think it is fine where it is at... I could have just taken more Ledbury's but I actually think they would have been sunk faster against the MG fire. The two extra points could have gone to upgrading the Salmon or the Auxilieries themselves. The Slow roll was not an issue especially with the Neosho's Fleet Tanker SA.

You are correct, I wrote the stats down wrong when building the fleet (I got my lines mixed up in the spreadsheet between the Vampire and Ledury). That should teach me to just not be lazy and pull out the darned cards.