I’m also intrigued with the suggested limit of destroyers and bombers being the only adversaries to the sub.
Kurt – I agree, subs should not be able to kill other subs.
Adlertag – yes, subs should be used in both commerce raids and naval combat (and stop SCREAMING ).
(somebody slap him and bring him back to his senses)
I dont like the idea of one lone sub blockading a greate Empire alone. There are no rails or chains at sea, just plain water.Larry wrote:Der Panzinator – (your post 20) Great idea cards and merchant marine. If I may springboard on this – Player lays down a small card (or plastic ship) on the board showing the links between his territories and his IC capital. Break these chains of sea zones and break the economical link.
Most realistic idea is to let ENR work with same mechanic as SBR.
Any sub or surface raider in sea-zone adjacent to territory with Industrial Complex, roll a dice and eyes = loss of ipc. Of course, naval combat must take place first, if any present.
Or like this, for any sub or surface raider in sz next to terr. w. I.C., then owner automatically lose 2 ipc in collect income phase.
Draw dashed lines representing convoys (eg, from Halifax to London, etc). The number of dashed lines from one territory to the other could depend on the country's relative contribution to the major power (ie, Canada's contribution to England via convoy). So hypothetically (and I am JUST MAKING THIS UP!) if India contributed 2x as much material to England as did Canada, India would have 2x the number of "convoy lines".
Each 'dash' would be subject to attack/capture. If any given line is broken (by a dash being captured), the amount that that single line is contributing is lost. So if there's only a single line from one territory to another, the entire contribution of that territory is lost - whereas if there are 5 lines, but only one has been interrupted, only 1/5 of that country's contribution is lost.
Oh, I'd also give each "dash" a defense factor (that can hit subs, no problem) to represent the escorts etc. that were inevitably there. Perhaps a higher defense value within historical fighter range ... and maybe they should get to keep "defending" even when enemy-occupied.
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB2/ ... =3974#3974 (link will open new window)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests