rafjorbro said:
Also, Vaino, maitime recon can be conducted by sending aircraft on repeated missions over the ocean, and in naval combat a single task force will usually take on a spotted enemy, which is logical since a task force would sail together. Naval battles can continue for days on end. Yes, some of the decisive battles happened very quickly, but others took several days (sinking the Bismark, PQ-17 for example). Imagine a series of sightings an d engagements over the course of a running battle. Also, the battles in HOI are often larger than real life because players and AI make different choices that real life and commit larger forces.
On maritime recon: You mean in the original HoI? Sure, but I think you argree that the practise is extremely tedious and wasteful in in terms of recourses (you are using a fricking 100 aircraft to patrol one zone). Even placing subs into every single sea zone is a more economical solution. I wouldn't object if all air squarons in HoI 2 would conduct limited (and automatic) recon of nearby provinces with their patrol planes, however (and the same should probably go for cruisers, battleships, and of course, carriers).
However, what I'm wishing for is small squadrons of flying boats, around 10-20. You know, those things with a range of around 5000-7000 kms and the ability to technically refuel even at the middle of a wide ocean. Fighters and bombers (well, strategic bombers like B17 and B24 were used in similar roles, from time to time) just didn't have the endurance for strategic maritime recon. Everything like this should be automated, of course.
Oh, and then there is the radio interception as well. Land detection was largely assumed to be caused by it in HoI, if I understood correctly. Why no similar system for navies?
On taskforces: The key word is usually. There are examples of enemy forces being defeated piecemeal in a relatively small area (thinking about Savo Island here mainly). Various communication problems may (or rather, will) come up within a taskforce or a fleet. Heck, look at the battle of Barents Sea; two German DDs fromed up with Kenya and a Town class CL (whose name excapes me) thinking they were Hipper and Lützow, and were greeted accordingly. Things like that happen in the uncertain confusion that is the naval combat.
The rule would also go ways to counter the last, very viable, point you made (player and AI commit all their forces rashly). Other thing need to be done to prevent it further, however. Large surface forces didn't really move around without air cover. And they were delegated as just escorts for carriers when they did move with it. And a concentration somewhere would leave you weak somewhere else.
On naval battles: I'll have to disargee with you here. Well, first I'll confess that I haven't really read up on the battles of Med, but in the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic short surface actions were the norm by far.
In fact, I can't think a single one that was clearly a continious engagement, ala HoI I, that lasted for too many hours (none definetly lasted longer than a day). And the Battle of the Java Sea is the only long surface battle that is popularily classified as a single engagement that I can think of. But then again, even Java Sea saw around 24h period of no fighting at all (between the sinking of the Dutch cruisers and the time Exeter made a run for it) and should be represented by two seperate actions in HoI 2.
Neither PQ-17 (convoy action, not a battle in neither of the HoIs) or the Rheinübung operation (always classified as few seperate battles and went through a lot of seazones in the process) are particularily good examples of long naval battles.
(Edit) Carrier battles are a bit different though, being more multidimensional, but with the exception of Philippine Sea, the main action was always clearly concentreted on one day.
(Edit #2) I added a couple of new suggestions to my previous post, in case anyone is intrested.
