Tripoli-port a must in sc 2

[Kuniworth]

It is missing in sc, which is completly unhistorical as this was one of the best harbours of the whole north africa. Rommel's main supplies and troops arrived here from february 1941 and it's weird that is not available.

Change this to sc 2 so we can get a more realistic north african campaign.

[ May 16, 2004, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[Night]

^ what he said.

[jon_j_rambo]

Gotta get rid of the landing bonus to make Africa realistic.

[Some_God]

^ what he said.

[Edwin P.]

To get a realistic NA campaign you are going to have to playtest this scenario with and without the various ports used by all sides. The number of ports in North Africa affects strategy, movement and supply of units.

Adding another historical port may may be more realistic from a map-centric point of view but adversly affect the historical ebb and flow of combat in this theater that the designer is looking for. This is question that can't be answered without playtesting.

[ May 16, 2004, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

^ what he said

CvM

[Some_God]

^ what he said.

[Exel]

Agreed. The same applies to Cherbourg port. They both definitely need to be added.

[Roosevelt45]

Originally posted by Exel:

Agreed. The same applies to Cherbourg port. They both definitely need to be added.

I don't know about Cherbourg.

It was a very important port from a strategic point of view(especially after D-day).But it's a lot less important than Tripoli if you look at it economically.

[bloodstar]

Actually what I'd love to see is a unit limit to the number of units a port can supply. perhaps it's economic value in units can be maintained in supply by a port. (but if you do that, go ahead and set max supply by sea to 10.) Then set cairo as a supply source for the allies (I believe the game is already being designed for secondary supply and industrial sources). At least that way, I think you could have a more interesting battle for africa. (you could even set Mosul as a supply point as well) Just food for thought.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

To get a realistic NA campaign you are going to have to playtest this scenario with and without the various ports used by all sides. The number of ports in North Africa affects strategy, movement and supply of units.

Adding another historical port may may be more realistic from a map-centric point of view but adversly affect the historical ebb and flow of combat in this theater that the designer is looking for. This is question that can't be answered without playtesting.

You gotta be kidding me Edwin. You seriously think solution to get a good game flow is not takin into account the historical facts???

Lets bring in the Tripoli-port. NOW.

[Roosevelt45]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

You gotta be kidding me Edwin. You seriously think solution to get a good game flow is not takin into account the historical facts???

Lets bring in the Tripoli-port. NOW. [/QB]

But what are the historical facts here?

Tripoli was vital for Rommel's Afrika Corps, agreed.But it dindn't have much economical value so if HC does decide to bring it in then how much MPP will it have?

[Kuniworth]

If you seriously think in that way, how do you justify that Tobruk should have a port and not Tripoli?

[Roosevelt45]

Well, you have to have some ports there

The point is that you do not want an overdose of ports in the Medditerranean.

[Desert Dave]

The map as currently constituted (... meaning: it is likely to remain as is, with a small chance that some geographic features and/or resource icons will be added or subtracted in the final edition)

Does have Tripoli as a city, with a port.

It does have Tobruk, but it is a fortress tile much like Gibraltar. There IS also a port at Tobruk.

Now, having said that, you all do realize that you can use the EDITOR... that really truly amazing! Hubert-gifted editor?

To put any port in there that you want.

Bengazi?

You just can't live any longer without Bengazi?

Put it in there!

Casablanca?

You can't live a mighty fine life, unless you can go out of a cool desert evening, with the palm trees rustle-swaying to an ocean melody,

And have a tall refreshing glass of iced mint So-Long tea, at Rick's Place?

Well then, build that infamous desert road-house, and they will come.

You'll have to hire more bouncers, so many will come.

It's merely a matter of... flick-click and yer done. :cool:

[Shaka of Carthage]

The issue isn't that the ports can't be added. I think most people realize that if something is missing, than they can edit it in.

The key is that the inclusion of a port also implies that we need the ability to edit the MPP value.

Then we can have those "minor" ports that were critical from naval viewpoint, but meaningless from a economic view.

[Desert Dave]

Very true that adding "minor ports" WILL change the aggregate MPP values for each particular country.

So.

You carefully (... and, with many personal beta testings) adjust the other resources.

For instance - all ports are now edited to be ZERO?

Well, in Britain's case, that is quite a few ports.

Therefore, you will need to boost production in some other way.

Many, MANY ways to do this.

And once everyone gets their avid hands on the amazing new! Editor

Then they can "play around" with it... to elated war-gamer heart's content.

One way would be to add in another city.

Or, another Mine Icon.

(... no doubt, you will consult WW2-era topographic maps to insure that the Mine is in an area where it should indeed be)

ADJUSTING the over-all Economic numbers to fit the new schematic.

There is going to be NO END to the possible variations.

This is good.

VERY good. :cool:

WHO!

Will make a scenario that might rival even the X-trmely HONED "default" version?

Time will tell.

[J P Wagner]

An Agricultural tile would be a good resource to have....perhaps a barn silo as a graphic?

[With Clusters]

One idea might be if there was some way to set some sort of 'maximum' MPP value to various cities/ports/resources. Not all cities were equal (hmm, they're all worth the same, except capitols are double), nor was every resource location (hex/tile) equally valuable. Could there be a different figure for MPPs vs supply value for a given city/port (or resource location regarding MPPs)? Or does this get into the 'overcomplicated' realm?

[Shaka of Carthage]

Based on what I just heard, it seems the system uses a universal definition for the MMP value of specific terrain features.

In other words, if you set the MPP value of "ports" to zero (0), all "ports" on the map will have a MPP value of zero (0).

If thats correct, then what we need are additional terrain features. Add two or three or whatever to the system. Then, users can modify them to be what they need.

Initially, you could identify them as:

Minor City

Minor Port

Impassable Terrain

Now, some scenarios could have Ports with the normal MPP value and Minor Ports with a zero MPP value.

This would be a greater benefit to the majority in this community than some of the other trivial requests.

[Edwin P.]

Excellent Idea: minor ports, minor cities and impassable terrian.

I would also like to see terrain that is impassible to Tank Groups and mechanized units for use on smaller scale maps - don't want any tanks climbing mountains in Korea.