Locations of Air and Naval Bases

@Flashman:

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, Sicisaly

thats 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, Sicisaly

thats 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, Sicisaly

thats 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.

@oztea:

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.

@Richter:

I would put a naval into “western” France - Germany used this as a staging point for subs end based some cruisers (includung the Scharnhorst/Gneisenau) for some time there.

I think it should be a built, optional base (illustrating the upgraded concrete pens) not a pre-built. If not, Germany will have no chance for long-term harassment with their uboats. Unfortunately, and fortunately if you’re the allies, this will likely become the number one naval base bombed throughout the game…

Important naval bases in Europe 1940:

UK
Scapa Flow
Plymouth
Sothampton (more civil)
Gibraltar
Alexandria
Dakar
Malta (small)

France
Toulon
Brest
Dunkirque
Saint Nazaire (subs)
Casablanca
Mers-El-Kebir (Oran)
Beirut (small)

Italy
Taranto
Brindisi
Trieste
Genoa
Naples
Messina
Tripoli
Tobruk

Germany
Kiel
Willemshaven
Danzig

USSR
Leningrad
Murmansk
Sevastopol
Odessa

USA
Hampton Roads, Norfolk Virginia
New York
Boston

Other (Neutrals)
Antwerpen
Rotterdam
Gothenburg
Oslo (fjord)
Narvik (fjord)
Lisabon
Cadiz
Barcelona
Pireus

Nice research Canaris, welcome to the forum.

@allboxcars:

@Canaris:

Important naval bases in Europe 1940:

UK
Scapa Flow
Plymouth
Sothampton (more civil)
Gibraltar
Alexandria
Dakar
Malta (small)

I’d think the list incomplete if Halifax wasn’t added.

#519

I agree it was a huge center for for Canadian convoys headed to Britian

Nice work gentlemen!