@WILD:
@Brain:
@WILD:
@Brain:
Planes are better ship destroyers that subs.
Yea but planes can’t hover in enemy convoy zones and cost $, and can’t take out subs alone either.
That is why there is this thing called an aircraft carrier.
Yea an air craft carrier can interrupt a convoy, but I believe its air units don’t count (its considered one unit 1 IPC). An aircraft carrier with 2 planes still can’t attack a sub, because the planes can’t hit the sub (no dd), and the carrier has no attack value. Plus the sub could just submerge anyway (but doesn’t need to).
Originally we were talking destroyng ships, not subs, planes are better for destroying ships and destroyers are best for subs.
My convoys represent the transfer of cash from one place to another, they don’t generate extra income. Hence, each one is a link in a chain of land - to - sea(convoy) - to land, with all 3 (or more) links needing to be held for the transfer to take place, along with a demonstrable route to the desired IC destination.
They are either lend-lease convoys to send money to an ally, or colonial convoys needed to transfer money from overseas possessions. It is absurd that the UK can collect cash for India when the home island is surrounded by enemy ships.
There are a couple of overland routes also, i.e. Persian corridor.
I agree. Far flung territories should have a controlled path to the homeland before thay can contribute IPC’s to their “homeland” otherwise they should have to spend the money themselves if they have a factory or save the money until it can be transported along a clear path.
@Brain:
I agree. Far flung territories should have a controlled path to the homeland before thay can contribute IPC’s to their “homeland” otherwise they should have to spend the money themselves if they have a factory or save the money until it can be transported along a clear path.
Woah, that’s a novel idea actually. It has serious potential. Just speculation right now, but say in the next game we scrap the current convoy rules, and then all ipcs either need to be connected by land to a factory where they can be spent, or a naval base which can connect to another naval base with a factory, or they have to be saved. Then, ships could be used to block naval bases thus making sea routes to trasport ipcs impossible (great example of africa and england which would make naval dominance highly important). Thoughts?
@Brain:
I agree. Far flung territories should have a controlled path to the homeland before thay can contribute IPC’s to their “homeland” otherwise they should have to spend the money themselves if they have a factory or save the money until it can be transported along a clear path.
Hmmm.
So would that be your evil twin brother saying that rules shouldn’t keep IPCs in Canada as it totally unbalances the game and dooms the Allies?
:lol:
Canada would still be owned by UK.
@Brain:
@Brain:
I agree. Far flung territories should have a controlled path to the homeland before thay can contribute IPC’s to their “homeland” otherwise they should have to spend the money themselves if they have a factory or save the money until it can be transported along a clear path.
Hmmm.
So would that be your evil twin brother saying that rules shouldn’t keep IPCs in Canada as it totally unbalances the game and dooms the Allies?
:lol:Canada would still be owned by UK.
And this proposed rule would cause the same net effect.
#521
Not exactly
