Needs port @ Calais (Dunkirk)

[watchdog]

Operationally moving the BEF to Brest and then moving them by transport back to UK is NOT good enough for this great game. There must be a port (only; no ind complex or anything) so Brits can get back to UK after the fall of France.

[PawBroon]

Should be neat.

Another thing missing is that when Paris is threatened, the Gvt doesn't settle in Bordeaux as it did back then.

Of course, we French having folded so rapidly, staying in Paris make the game more likely to turn sour again for us.

But the Brits go to Manchester and all.

So here I am, French and wondering.

[Stalin's Organ]

IMO the removal of the BEF at Dunkirk is best simulated by disbanding it, not removing the unit.

The BEF no longer existed as a fighting force after Dunkirk - rather it's survivors were a lot of poorly equipped soldiers who needed lots of rest, recovery and confidence rebuilding!!

Also Pawbroon - IMO moving hte French capital would unbalance the game unless it did not affect the chances of the French surrender.

All defeated countries moved their Govts - usually to London - but that didn't stop them being defeated. Having the French fight on in 1940 would not be a reasonable option.

And I also note that the French do get to move their Govt - to Vichy!!

[watchdog]

assuming that mpp's are recieved for disbanding units (i have heard of this just never tried it) then you are probably right that this is a reasonable alternative to a port. thnx

[windstarz]

sometimes you dont get an option to disband. so doubt if you could disband BEF. not sure how that works.

[pzgndr]

I agree we don't need Calais, but I'll put in a vote for adding Southampton/Portsmouth on the southern British coast, Cherbourg on the French coast, and Bremen/Hamburg on the German west coast one of these days. These were major port facilities. Sealion is such a bear until you're able to take London, but logistics for the landing force should not be as tight as they are in SC. Not easy, but a little better - and a port on the southern coast would help. If play balance is the issue, then there are probably other factors to consider besides severely restricting cross-channel supply, like ... beaches.

Another thing about ports. In my attempts to invade Norway, I note the British fleets are unable to enter the port hex at Bergen, even after it's been reduced to zero, due to the German defenders in the city I guess. However, with Sealion I note the British fleet could still come and go through Gillingham even after I took London. This was irritating. I haven't quite figured out the port control thing.

Btw, was "Gillingham" a real port? How about Harwich or Great Yarmouth, or just call it London.

I am noticing if I build up a stronger garrison in Poland then Russia doesn't declare war so quickly, so perhaps the Nazi-Soviet Pact politics takes that into account. It will be interesting to see to complete designer notes when they come out. :cool:

Anyway, May 16, 1941, rolls around much too soon. Where the heck is that Gold Demo??

[Stalin's Organ]

Good idea!

Another thing putting Portsmouth in would do would be to pull some Brit units down from Fortress Manchester to defend the coastline, which seems a little more historical!!

[Stalin's Organ]

Good idea!

Another thing putting Portsmouth in would do would be to pull some Brit units down from Fortress Manchester to defend the coastline, which seems a little more historical!!

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

I disagree that a disbandment of the BEF is accurate. There does need to be a port at calais.(the channel port were some of the krauts main objectives in the fall of france) With the new port, the Bef should be trans ported to britain, BUT, with its readiness down to about 5%. Simulating that the men were their but not thier machines.