@WILD:
@Emperor_Taiki:
it makes ports strategic locations and reprsenents that when a ship has a dedicated base for fueling, idleling, and security that it has greater operational range.
Thats how I look at ports. Its also why I think a port should offer protection to your fleet. I didn’t see any Jap surface ships in “Port Harbour” Those big guns at any port (or straight for that mater) deterred surface ships or they would pay the price! If your port is land based and the enemy takes control of that tt then your ships should become dislodged. Maybe you don’t get any protection (or very little) against an air & sub attack that I would agree with.
I dare say that a large part of the reason there were no surface ships attacking “Pearl Harbor” was that they were too busy covering the rest of our Jap landings at Tarawa, Makin, Guam, Luzon, Camiguin, Wake, Philippines, Sarawak, Brunei, and other places in Borneo within 10 days of Pearl, and didn’t need to send surface ships to sink American surface ships, just needed that third wave to finish things off a bit more. Japan cemented air-power as the key to naval power that day. That, and woke up a really big giant with a really big hammer…
Though to the thought in general of attacking ships in port with other ships, I think no, don’t allow it. The logistics of moving ships around in port and firing is just too messy. Something sinks and it throws off your whole movement, and being that the point is to sink things, the odds of something going sideways is better than fair.
But if the territory the port is in is taken, your ships in port are dislodged into the SZ. I don’t think that you should have to take the port in order to get the territory and think of ports as a blockhouse. Cherbourg was taken after DDay, not as the starting point.