Oh, awesome. We thought you had to own the base. That actually makes a lot more sense as far as realism goes.
Locations of Air and Naval Bases
-
Also I beleive that England used Irish naval bases, perahps Ireland will be pro-allies and the UK will be able to use a naval base that starts their.
-
Also I beleive that England used Irish naval bases, perahps Ireland will be pro-allies and the UK will be able to use a naval base that starts their.
No it didn’t.
Churchill offered to transfer sovereignty of Northern Ireland in exchange for wartime bases, but Eire’s pro-German leader deValera wouldn’t consider the idea.
Eire as a country, however, should be generally considered pro-Allied, as many Irish citizens volunteered to fight in the British armed forces.
If Northern Ireland is a territory this should contain a minor factory, as many warships and flying boats were built here. It was also an important base for air patrols covering the Atlantic.
On a different note, I’m wondering about Gibraltar.
I assume it’ll be a stand alone land territory, probably ridiculously large and sticking into Spain.
But does it need to be a land territory at all? Why not just make it a “treaty port”, that is a UK naval base within the territory of Spain? If Spain joins the Axis Gibraltar would be easily captured; this is automatic. The Axis cannot attack the place directly (except perhaps by air if using ships in port rules) without violating Spanish neutrality.
A similar thing can be used for Hong Kong; it seems silly for the UK to own a huge province of China just to represent a small enclave built around the naval base. Treat it as a UK port in Chinese territory; if Japan captures the territory the port falls just as any other land area with a port attached.
-
Eastern United States - Port, Airbase, Major Factory
England - Port, Airbase, Major Factory
Scotland - Airbase, Minor Factory
Gibraltar - Port
Malta - Airbase
Iceland - Airbase
Suez* - Port, Airbase
*(A territory like Panama containing both sides of the canal)Central France - Minor Factory
Brittany - Port, Airbase, Minor Factory
Tunis - PortNorthern Italy - Port, Airbase, Major Factory
Southern Italy - PortRhineland (West Germany)- Major Factory, Airbase
Saxony (East Germany) - Major Factory, Airbase, Port
Bavaria - Minor Factory
Romania - Minor FactoryMoscow - Major Factory, Airbase
Karellia - Minor Factory
Archangel - Port
Urals - Minor Factory
Volga - Minor Factory -
On a different note, I’m wondering about Gibraltar.
I assume it’ll be a stand alone land territory, probably ridiculously large and sticking into Spain.
But does it need to be a land territory at all? Why not just make it a “treaty port”, that is a UK naval base within the territory of Spain? If Spain joins the Axis Gibraltar would be easily captured; this is automatic. The Axis cannot attack the place directly (except perhaps by air if using ships in port rules) without violating Spanish neutrality.
A similar thing can be used for Hong Kong; it seems silly for the UK to own a huge province of China just to represent a small enclave built around the naval base. Treat it as a UK port in Chinese territory; if Japan captures the territory the port falls just as any other land area with a port attached.
lol, good point, that makes so much more sence.
I am sure this interfiors with Larry’s KISS leanings, although it is not really complicated at all and its a very strong arguement since it applies in more than one case.
thx for the correction on the Irish bases BTW, i must have been reading something on churchill’s purposal and didnt make it to the end of the chapter.
oztea,
i doubt their will be a suez territroy, and i dont know why you would put a naval base(or an air base for that matter) there if their was one. If a naval base is anywhere in egypt shouldn’t it represent the one at Alexandria? -
Scotland & Northern Ireland - ports (Belfast & Glasgow major shipbuilders)
Southern Spain - Port (Cadiz)
Sweden - minor factory
Russian port should be Leningrad not Archangel, and Sevastopol
Stalingrad factory should be in Volga territory; Caucasus has high IPC value (oil).
Ukraine should also have factory before 1942; after this good case for Urals factory being major (moved from Ukraine?)
Port added to Pacific map? (Vladivostok)French ports at Marseille (Vichy) & Oran (Algeria); Dakar (Senegal)
Is Rome in northern or southern Italy? If south should be only minor factory, despite being capital.
Romania - no factory but high value for oil
Egypt - port is Alexandria, possibly in Western Egypt territory?
India - port (Bombay)I also oppose the building of new ports; seems to big an undertaking in war. Airbases can be built anywhere.
-
I also oppose the building of new ports; seems to big an undertaking in war. Airbases can be built anywhere.
Your not building ports, your building naval bases, think of it a renovating a port that already exists.
-
Is there anyone like me who wants 3 minor factories in africa. 1 in SA, that the UK will hold on to till the bitter end, 1 in egypt, that will be hard to capture, and 1 in Tobrock which can be consistanally traided. This makes africa a real possibility for uk, if they want it.
-
@democratic:
Is there anyone like me who wants 3 minor factories in africa. 1 in SA, that the UK will hold on to till the bitter end, 1 in egypt, that will be hard to capture, and 1 in Tobrock which can be consistanally traided. This makes africa a real possibility for uk, if they want it.
those seem like reasonable places to build them, i dont think they should be in the setup.
-
But their will not be a VC in africa, so atleast give Italy and UK something to fight for in north africa. Nobody would build a factory in Tobrouck, becasue it is to easy to take.
-
Didn’t Larry say that Cairo would be a VC?
-
Does anybody know how good WOTC did at placing naval bases in the Pacific game?
-
They were all pretty good apat from AUS. There should be one in Sydney (NSW), then at least 1 of the following. Darwin (NT), Port Mornsby (PNG). The ABs should be QUE and NZ though.
-
So we should expect that WOTC will do a fairly decent job of placing them in the European game.
-
Well, you would have
EUS
UK, Giburlta, Cairo, Iceland???
EGermany, Norway
Karlina
W France
S Italy, Sicisalythats my ideas
JUST REALISED 100 Posts!!!
Thanks for a great website all.
250 next milestone. -
@democratic:
Well, you would have
EUS
UK, Giburlta, Cairo, Iceland???
EGermany, Norway
Karlina
W France
S Italy, Sicisalythats my ideas
Does that agree with what Flashman previously posted?
-
@democratic:
Well, you would have
EUS
UK, Giburlta, Cairo, Iceland???
EGermany, Norway
Karlina
W France
S Italy, Sicisalythats my ideas
Can’t forget Halifax NB.
-
Flashman, you give neutral sweeden a minor factory, but not Finland? An actual participant in the war.
Putting facilities in neutral territory will only entice players to attack them ahistoricly. Not that that isnt allowed, it however should only be IPCs that influence that decision.
-
Flashman, you give neutral sweeden a minor factory, but not Finland? An actual participant in the war.
Putting facilities in neutral territory will only entice players to attack them ahistoricly. Not that that isnt allowed, it however should only be IPCs that influence that decision.
Well aside from that since an IC is the location for mobilizing new units.
So putting one in a formerly Neutral territory would only be justified if you’re saying that those conquered citizens would rally to the conqueror’s cause and enlist.
Otherwise, the manufacturing assets the invader gained should just be modelled by capturing IPCs. -
I think the Krimera / Caucasus should have a Naval base to indicate the Ship trafficing from Stalingrad… 8-)
-
To clarify my views on factories and placement:
I have infantry placement completely separate from mechanical units.
Therefore, Finland (or the Axis player controlling Finland), though it has no major industry, can place infantry every turn up to it’s IPC value; i.e. (on my maps) 1 per turn. Similarly infantry can be placed in such countries as Romania, Hungary etc to represent their considerable infantry presence in the Axis armies, even though they, too, had no significant war industries.
Sweden did have a significant arms industry (it is currently the Worlds 10th biggest arms exporter), which justifies a minor factory, regardless of it’s neutrality. It should also have a reasonable defence force if anyone decides to attack it, including artillery and a fighter.
However, since my rules do not allow the use of a captured factory, the first side to attack Sweden automatically forfeits the right to use the factory there.
In other words, the Swedish factory can only be used by SWEDES, and only when liberated from the aggressor and as part of the liberating alliance.
The factory is, therefore, a disincentive to attack the country, which should in consequence remain historically neutral throughout. Which may suggest it’s a waste of time putting it there; but I say if the Swedish arms industry did exist in reality it should exist in the game.
Perhaps a player might, in certain circumstances, go ahead and invade Sweden anyway IF there are rules which allow the Swedes to join the war on the other side as a result of diplomatic overtures.
Suggested Topics
