Yes… but im not sure you SEE the fact that the german player is not really UP 10 IPC he lost s europe, balkans, and lybia and gave them up to Italy… he remains at 40 IPC… the compensation is he gains the lost 10 back because now germany is worth 10 more points.
Not to mention losing control of those southern forces to a pontential new player…
oh yes
I should say “Italy 10 IPC, and lend-lease are all under optional rule only” instead
but then I think lend-lease is neccessary because US/UK can’t land in red (USSR) territories anymore
so I think lend-lease still goes but the 10 IPC is not free in basic rule…and the 10 IPC is free in optional Italy rule
anyone know anything about Gibraltar in WWII?
should there be restriction to amount of forces occupying Gibraltar?
should there be a supply cost for forces occupying Gibraltar?
Occupying cost supply? Why?
Gibraltar was a naval and air base, and provided A defensive position to the Mediteraenean access from the Atlantic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar
I think that if you make restrictions to the amount of units there you will just be filling “space”, but in actuality there should be only 2 planes there…
GG
Duno, was thinking the place can’t support itself.
Anyway the place is tiny at 6.5km^2 so build up of forces there would be weird.
It was supplied by sea. Of course it had stores and could endure long periods of isolation. Axis ships should not in any event be allowed to leave the medd ( speaking about italy)… but i understand that this is an important element of creative axis strategy so we should probably leave it alone in terms of any imposing of restrictions.
As a factual note Italy did not posess enough fuel to leave the medd, while the fortress would have shot to pieces any passing ships. The straights also had sub nets and was mined so that any ships that moved had to go very slow in like a zig zag patten. This would have made it even easier for the brits to shoot at axis ships.
Hitler under operation Isabella and operation Felix had proposed even attacking and conquering his friend Spain in order to get a crack at spain.
If italy was to have any chance they would have needed to take the suez and the oil of the middle east along with Gibrater to gain the freedom to leave the medd.
So in the end, do you propose any restrictions to amount of forces occupying Gibraltar or Gibraltar preventing movement out of Med Sea?
Maybe no more than 5 units can occupy Gibraltar?
And for the Med Sea case, we could expand “Air Interdiction” to adjacent sea zones to model this.
o in the end, do you propose any restrictions to amount of forces occupying Gibraltar or Gibraltar preventing movement out of Med Sea?
Maybe no more than 5 units can occupy Gibraltar?
And for the Med Sea case, we could expand “Air Interdiction” to adjacent sea zones to model this.
+++++ what value would this restriction serve? are you looking at the size of the territory and want some “stacking limitations” stacking introduces a whole new can of worms and i dont think many would like it or would they?
I feel generally people don’t like stacking
let see what others feel about build up of forces at Gibraltar
How about this:
You may only have 1 Air Unit in Gibralar, and Land Units are limited to one Unit Per Transport in the SZ adjacent… They are a “fleet” resupplying offshore and can transfer men to the shore, but it still limits overall stacking…
GG
If its just “1 air unit” then Germany can send planes to attack it.
Did they or why didn’t they do that?
They never attacked Gibraltar cause they didn’t have the range… Or if they did it was defended by AA so well it wasn’t worth it… 1-2 AA on Gibraltar in OOB?
GG
nope OOB had nothing at Gibraltar
only a battleship in the sea zone next to it
as for range, in game its certainly within FTR or BMR range
in reality BF-109 had 850km combat range, Spitfire had 760km
If you guys want we could allow some free shot thing against passing ships in or out of gibrater…except the fact that Italy had no fuel to move from the medd into the atlantic. Plus where would the go? southern africa? Baltic?
so in the end are we placing any restrictions?
a cost system like for deserts would limit deployment to a minimal level at Gibraltar
No, I know my OOB, I am just saying if you want to add something more… If you were to do that, I would say allow them to shoot once (per nation) at any non-submarine Naval Vessel that passes through the straights…
GG
Yea id go for that as well. only Gibrater and possibly the denmark straights and the english channel should get this. In Turkey into the black sea it should just not be allowed and treated as the panama and suez canal.
id say two rolls of three for each passing of enemy ships per turn. Also any planes at gibrater can immediatly intercept and attack these ships in addition to the free preemtive barrage.
Ok so no restrictions on force buildup at Gibraltar, let them put 10 ARM there.
Yeah ok Turkey/Black Sea now act like Panama and Suez Canal. But really Balkan and Turkey should be adjacent territories?
Denmark straights is certainly reasonable.
It would be Germany realistically…but the AAR map made it look like it should be France with the ability attack ships entering Baltic Sea?
English channel is a bit over the top though
The idea of adding the English channel was due to this:
http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/scharnhorst/history/scharncerberus.html
as you can see these channels were mined and it is quite easy to intercept ships via air and such… its not exactly a gun of navarone thing but perhaps it may fit the profile as we have for the Danish straights.
oh I see
actually this can be quite important
it models the restrictions Germany had with surface ships
so what do you think about Balkan and Turkey?
I think realistically they should act as adjacent territories for non-combat move but not combat-move
but thats too complicated so I guess forget it
