now, how are we putting the 10 IPCs on Germany terrtories?
++++ germany is now just 10 IPC more than before. This only applies under optional Italy rule. It is not the basic rule. Under the new alternate map i suppose ill edit and make germany worth 20 IPC.
Would Germany have to be 12 or 14? (Like even more than Eastern United States.)
+++ no more… 10 additional IPC more.
And are we splitting up Norway into Norway and Finland?
Australia into two territories?
+++++ that would be correct. An entire continent with one space… thats rediculous!
But no need to add a dessert to Australia, or South Africa.
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0778851.html
Nothing comes close to Sahara and Arabian’s size. 3.5mil and 1mil sq miles.
Yes correct… austrailia is just east and west nothing special.
if 10 IPC to Italy and 10 IPC lend-lease is a balance
then basic rule is not balanced?
is lend-lease also for optional rule only?
if 10 IPC to Italy and 10 IPC lend-lease is a balance
then basic rule is not balanced?
is lend-lease also for optional rule only?
++++ italy is an optional rule and it goes hand in hand with the lend lease. Allies get lend lease, Axis get Italy
Germany itself goes up by 10 IPC ( start at 40-10 for italy+10 for germanys increased value= 40)
Italy now takes out what was formerly southern europe, lybia and balkans ( 10 IPC+ for axis net)
Allies can now loan 10 IPC to Soviets/uk ( also net 10 IPC gain for allies)
its balanced out.
so Italy 10 IPC, Germany up 10 IPC, and lend-lease are all under optional rule only
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
