Topics created by Narvik

long distance attacking planes ?
Yes

AL.

All your points were sound and we’ll taken :)
I just saw a clear opening to raise the relative ipc distribution subject and had to take it hehe. It’s the one area where strict comparative analysis is always pushed “well territory A can’t be worth X since territory B is worth Y” etc. But with units people allow more flexibility. I only brought it up because the rubber band always seems to snap on ipcs, despite being pretty flexible everywhere else ;)

You meant “the Turkish part” of the map right? :p

I agree with your point Narvik.  You think the designers have a reasonable chance to consider that revision?

@CWO:

Just to toss an extra factor into this discussion, one should remember that (in real life) deploying a defensive minefield around a port isn’t consequence-free for the defender.  Such minefields help protect the port from penetration by enemy ships, but they also impair the port’s capacity to handle friendly ships because they have to waste time picking their way through the minefields, something which requires good minefield charts, slow speeds and careful navigation by the harbour pilots.

You are completely right about this, but as it is ports have no restrictions on use. A naval base could service 100 carriers as easily as a single submarine. Unless youre suggesting that friendly ships should roll for mines, I am not sure that this is practical. Perhaps the conversion of a peacetime harbor to a mine-infested, artillery-ridden military base should come with a restiction on the number of ships that can use its facilities a turn. Maybe 8? That begs the inclusion of a smaller piece (port? harbor?) that has the same capabilities of the naval base, but on a smaller scale, and with less cost.

The A&A Classic from the 80,s had a great house rule named Bridging. It had in my basement, for sure.

Lets say you have a tranny in sz 110 that was not used in combat nor has it moved. Then it can bridge 4 land units from UK to Normandy during non-combat.

The rationale is that a tranny have 4 action points. 1 embark +1 move +1 move + 1 debark = 4 points.
Now if that tranny is used for non-combat  bridging in sz 110, it will be 1 embark +1 debark + 1 embark + 1 debark = 4 points.
So far so fair.

With OOB rules, a tranny can 1>embark in EUS 2>sz 102 3>sz 103 4> sz 91 and 5>debark in Morocco = 5 action points
With OOB rules, a tranny in sz 110 is only allowed to 1>embark in UK and 2> debark in Normandy = 2 action points.

This is not fair. It takes 14 days and a lot of fuel to cross the Atlantic, but only 4 hours to cross the Channel.

My question is, should non-combat bridging need a Port ?
Both UK and Normandy have ports, and Germany bridging from WG to Norway is ok, but what about bridging units from Norway to WG, should it be allowed ?