Boarding transports without harbor?

[Exel]

How is SC2 going to solve the issue with isles without harbors? Currently invading Crete, Cyprus or even Ireland means that your land unit is stuck on the piece of land it occupies and can't escape. On the other hand, adding harbors to every island might not be reasonable. What I suggest is that all land units would be able to board transports from all tiles, it would only cost more and perhaps take an extra turn. This would have the added benefit of allowing things like Dunkirk to occur.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

I concur, something has to be done about isles of doom where your men even if victorious are never seen again.

I don't recall ever seeing mention of sirens in the manual. So where do these men go?

[ev]

My suggestion, we could allow a unit to embark from a non-port square at a cost:

First, readiness level would have to drop close to zero - cannot use that unit to attack or defend effectively elswhere when it lands.

Second, board a transport but not move, in the same turn. Boarding off port should be a slow process, particularly vulnerable to air and naval attacks.

Third, some loss of strength would be necessary to account for abandonned equipment and ammo that had to be left behind.

Any reactions?

[Edwin P.]

EV - Great Concept

To elaborate on it a bit more:

Some Loss of Strength:

My thoughts are

- Armor Groups - about 90% loss of strength

- Infantry - about 50%

I would add;

Can't embark from a non port square if adjacent to an enemy unit OR IF you embark while adjacent to an enemy unit your strength is reduced to 1.

[Desert Dave]

Good points all around, and I can tell you this much... this idea has been, at least, considered.

Perhaps pzgndr can Para-jump in here, howling out his blood-curdling Geronimo! yowl... as he has talked of just such a non-port retreat for quite some time now. :cool:

[bloodstar]

Actually I think the solution could simply be the addition of harbors that have low or no MMP value. you would get supply and you'd be able to move on and off the island(s) but there would be little or not economic value... simply any strategic value you might receieve from having control of the island.

[Exel]

I agree on the readiness penalty as well as the transport not being able to move right after "setting sail", but I do not support the idea of giving strenght penalty. Why, if you took off from Crete after victorious conquest, would you lose any equipment let alone men, just because there isn't a major port? Also remember that in Dunkirk the Allies were able to evac most of their men, while only a small group was left behind and surrender, and all that in combat conditions (okay, it was a small miracle, but still). And losing strenght would also mean losing experience since you'd need to reinforce.

[Shaka of Carthage]

bloodstar has the solution. Ports with little or no MMP value.

[Exel]

You really don't want to add harbors to every isle. And think about a possible Pacific scenario. You want harbor on Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Okinawa, etc? Imo boarding transports from non-harbor tiles with some special rules (readiness, cost and time penalty) would be much better.

[norvandave]

How about having the capability of building a makeshift port with engineers like they did after D-Day, in this case to excavate troops? It would be good to have them to build bridgehead supply lines too.