Europe Map Projection Redux

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.

@oztea:

The size and shape of territories is only enlarged for unit placement.

:-D

Is there an echo in here?

Mmmm, according to this the Japanese controlled the coastal zone surrounding Hong Kong, but can scarcely be said to be in occupation of the Province, most of which was still in Chinese hands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_Occupation_-_Map.jpg

Japan had the policy of taking over coastal towns, but leaving the interior to the Chinese, so it’s debatable as to who was “in control” at this time.  For me, it’s still China, so Japan still has to capture the whole province of Kwangtung, not just a tiny bit.

If Japan and UK are not at war, then there’s no problem with the units coexisting; the Brits just sit out any Sino-Japanese battle.

Japan gains control of the territory and get it’s income (I wouldn’t have this as a VC in any case), but wouldn’t be able to build a naval base - that privilege has been signed over to the UK.  In effect Japan takes over China’s side of the treaty.

Can anyone deny or confirm the following concerning the Europe 1940 map:

1. Will have a fairly accurate, widened Atlantic?
2. only WITH the above, Azores included? (considering how much smaller Malta is…)

Am I alone in wanting either of these?  :|

Ok, no Azores but hope you and I “assume” correctly about the Atlantic.  :wink:

I’d rather see a squashed and inaccurate North/South America as a trade off for a wider Atlantic…nothing besides unit placement/mobilization really happens there anyhow in our games…

@adam.hall:

I’d rather see a squashed and inaccurate North/South America as a trade off for a wider Atlantic.

Shouldn’t need to with the bigger board.

What is the rationale for a ship moving faster when leaving a port?

Yes, I’m curious to know the answer to that one as well.

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.

@johnnymarr:

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