gdpsnake Posted August 26, 2002 Share Posted August 26, 2002 I think Belfast should be a port as well. It's impossible to leave Ireland if you invade and conquor. All the units used are stuck. Shouldn't Algeria have a port? And a port on the Western side of Africa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esquire Posted August 26, 2002 Share Posted August 26, 2002 I am with you on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool Posted August 26, 2002 Share Posted August 26, 2002 Originally posted by gdpsnake: I think Belfast should be a port as well. It's impossible to leave Ireland if you invade and conquor. All the units used are stuck. Shouldn't Algeria have a port? And a port on the Western side of Africa?The Belfast thing is to dissuade the British player from (ahistorically) taking Ireland (since you can't get them off again). This can be gotten around if you have enough other assets (fire support ships, planes, rockets) to pound the Belfast corps into dust, and then just move in one corps of your own to take it. But there are some other anomalies. The most problematic one is having Tobruk as the Italian's Libyan port, and not Tripoli, when the latter handled most of the offloading of supplies. This is a big problem for the Axis in the 1941 Scenario, since the British hold Tobruk and Rommel & co. have little prayer of taking it with the forces at their disposal. But this also means that the Axis can't ship their two Hqs and Panzer army to the continent! [where they might be of some use] Your only other option is to take Vichy out, since Algeria DOES have a port. John DiFool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted August 26, 2002 Share Posted August 26, 2002 As originally posted by John DiFool: But there are some other anomalies. The most problematic one is having Tobruk as the Italian's Libyan port, and not Tripoli, when the latter handled most of the offloading of supplies. This is a big problem for the Axis in the 1941 Scenario, since the British hold Tobruk and Rommel & co. have little prayer of taking it with the forces at their disposal. I certainly agree. Perhaps the idea was to make it harder to reinforce North Afrika, since you have to go the longer way around (... that Air Fleet at Malta, without HQ, is no real hindrance to supply efforts)and are more liable to be interdicted by Royal Navy. But, the end result of making Tobruk the only port (instead of the more easily defended short route to Tripoli), is to make it even LESS LIKELY that the Axis player will show any sustained interest in North Afrika. The very few MPPs gained was reason enough not to bother with the area in the first place, but seems like we should have more incentives, not less? Now, I realize that many will argue that -- on the scale of SC, North Afrika was a sort of romantic sideshow, but I would like to see any changes that would bring the whole southern map more into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willard Posted August 26, 2002 Share Posted August 26, 2002 I think Belfast needs a port. That way as Axis, I can ship arms to supply my oppressed brethren in the north and repel the English occupying forces in Northern Ireland! [ August 26, 2002, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Willard ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdpsnake Posted August 27, 2002 Author Share Posted August 27, 2002 Sorry, didn't mean Algeria, I meant Syria/Lebannon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts