I agree with Karl7 and wittmann here.
The bids are going mostly elswhere.
Europe Map Projection Redux
-
I am sorry but I am not buying any of those answers. A ship already out at sea is going to get passed by a ship leaving a port. C’mon think about it, it doesn’t make sense.
-
@Brain:
I am sorry but I am not buying any of those answers. A ship already out at sea is going to get passed by a ship leaving a port. C’mon think about it, it doesn’t make sense.
I pretend that a port come with minesweepers that clear the sea from mines so you can sail straight through, and you dont have to spend time zig-zag like in the zones without ports.
-
@Yoper:
Not faster, further.
It models the fact that you are coming from a place that has the facilities to fully refit and supply the ships for combat.
When you are moving otherwise, it’s more like meeting up with a supply ship at sea. An oiler transferring fuel ship to ship. Just not as efficient.My only issue with this, is when you move a carrier 3 spaces, and the planes cant reach the adjacent seazone. The carrier rule should be rewriten to say that carrierplanes can move 2 spaces. So move the carrier 3 spaces, and then the fighter can move two spaces. I asked Larry and didnt like his answer.
-
I see what you mean. When ftr/carrier starts in the same sz (w/NB), the ftr can’t attack the sz beyond the carriers range, and fly back to the carrier as it did before NB (ftr doesn’t have the range). I guess we’ll just have to wait for the tech tree in global for LRA. That brings me to wonder w/AB will LRA still be +2, or might it be only +1.
Edit: Bmrs w/range of 9 would be very interesting to say the least.
In Pacific (or anywhere really) ftrs only need is a range of six to fly out from an island w/AB and attack ships 2 sz away, then fly back (like Wake Is to Caroline sz then back). Any thoughts? -
I rationalized it by saying its a boardgame and some things are just added to make the game more interesting. everything is not historical or realistic
-
@Yoper:
@Brain:
I am sorry but I am not buying any of those answers. A ship already out at sea is going to get passed by a ship leaving a port. C’mon think about it, it doesn’t make sense.
Take it up with Larry. But you probably won’t like the answer. :|
I am sure Larry doesn’t care what I think, but I would be interested to know his thoughts on this as all I am trying to do is make sense of it. Maybe he is thinking correctly and I am not, but for the life of me, I can’t come up with the explanation.
-
I rationalized it by saying its a boardgame and some things are just added to make the game more interesting. everything is not historical or realistic
Now that’s a weird way to look at it… Intriguing… :-P
-
I rationalized it by saying its a boardgame and some things are just added to make the game more interesting. everything is not historical or realistic
Well we could add Godzilla to the game that would make it interesting for some, but not for me. I know it is just a game but there is a line I don’t want to cross, a moving line albeit, but a line none the less.
-
Is it faster for you to get somewhere by car when you……
a) Start at your house, knowing your destination and thereby ploting the quickest avalable route, or
b) Start 1/3 of the way to your destination, but you do not know your current exact location, and have been driving for 2 hours or so and may need gas shortly.If you start in port, you know where you are, and where you are going, and the quickes route there. Also you are fully fueled and well rested. You have also traveled the seas surronding your port many times before and are familiar with the safest/quickest/most efficent route to open seas
Orderd to move at sea requires you first recieve your orders via coded message, then to take bearings, plot a course on the fly, inform other ships in the convoy of their orders, and set sail.
Perhaps some ships are already low on fuel/food/or damaged etc. -
Captains have been successfully navigating those oceans for centuries. Sorry, but I am not buying the lost at sea explanation.
-
Treaty ports aren’t treated as separate land territories, so there’s no need to have blow-up boxes, or an absurdly enlarged Gibraltar territory covering half of southern Spain.
If the greater territory is occupied by enemy forces you lose the port.
So, if Spain joins the Axis, Gibraltar is automatically absorbed into Spain. Even without German help they’d have easily taken over the rock. The only thing that stopped Franco doing this was that his country was bankrupted by the civil war, and simply couldn’t afford to get involved in another conflict. He also realised that Spain would become a prime target for American intervention, and was in any case heavily dependent on American imports. He managed to stall Hitler by demanding the same French North African territory that Hitler had already promised to Mussolini (while secretly promising Petain it wouldn’t be transferred…)
If and when Spain joins the Axis then Spanish and Allied forces in the territory are treated as though a battle has been initiated. If using ships-in-port rules the UK would have the option of retreating it’s ships to sea.Similarly, if Japan captures Kwantgtung it’s assumed that it gains the Hong Kong naval base in the process. All UK and Chinese forces in the territory defend together.
We might also have French Pondichery in Coromandel, and Portuguese Goa in Malabar. Even if not significant militarily, they can become important if using certain Convoy routes, and if using ship re-fueling rules.
This is why:
The territory and guns of gibraltar are mostly on the ISLAND. There for you you need Amphibious equipment to land on gibraltar. No matter your force, sailing transports against anti-sea gun is stupid. then you have a mess. What prevents the spanish is embargo threats, and a war which they are too weak to fight. (By the way, thespanish should NOT have a big army due to the fact that they were low on men spain had about 150,000 men that COULD BE AT ARMS. In Shorth Nothing -
Three BIG things that you have messed up
1. Finland Fought against Germany AND USSR in WWII
A.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland_War
B.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
C. They were really just out to protect themselves from all invaders, Foreign and Domestic, and kept a democratic constituton.
2. The Northern half of Norway did not surrendur until after Dunkirk
3. Persia and
Iraq were pro-allies -
@Yoper:
@Brain:
@Yoper:
@Brain:
I am sorry but I am not buying any of those answers. A ship already out at sea is going to get passed by a ship leaving a port. C’mon think about it, it doesn’t make sense.
Take it up with Larry. But you probably won’t like the answer. :|
I am sure Larry doesn’t care what I think, but I would be interested to know his thoughts on this as all I am trying to do is make sense of it. Maybe he is thinking correctly and I am not, but for the life of me, I can’t come up with the explanation.
Yes, he may not care what you think about this topic, but did you ask?
You won’t know (nor will the rest of us) until you ask. It would be an enlightening discussion if you did. For all of us.
Hey Yope,
You know him, Why don’t you ask? He might give you an answer.
-
Wait, has the European map been revealed?
If so, does anyone have a link to it?
Thanks a million!
-
No map yet… Just discussion/debate/dialogue about it. 8-)
-
@Yoper:
I gave you the answer that I feel he will give you since it is similar to that which I believe he has given before.
Plus, it is better if you do the asking. If you feel that it is a big deal, then take the time to ask a thoughtful question of him on his site and he should answer you.
Maybe I will. Who is the moderator on that site?
Suggested Topics
