Slitherine

zechi wrote: Would it be possible to give these ports permanen 0 repair capacity (just as a port in a city which gets cpatured in GS 2.0)? Then no war ship could be repaired at these ports, but they could enter the port (which was possible as far as I know) and ground units could be transported through them.

I like this concept; in fact I had thought of it independently as I was reading through the thread. You could have three levels of port: major naval bases like Norfolk Virginia, Kiel and Wilhelmshaven where naval repairs are maximal (3). secondary bases with repair at 2 and civilian ports with no shipyards that allow troops to be embarked. You could allow this last to have repair 1 like your new rule for submarines at sea.

This would also address that question about that Spanish port that came up recently in this forum. It would require players to be more aware of the differences between ports. The strength of AA defences could mirror the repair capacity if wanted.

Rhialto wrote:

zechi wrote: Would it be possible to give these ports permanen 0 repair capacity (just as a port in a city which gets cpatured in GS 2.0)? Then no war ship could be repaired at these ports, but they could enter the port (which was possible as far as I know) and ground units could be transported through them.

I like this concept; in fact I had thought of it independently as I was reading through the thread. You could have three levels of port: major naval bases like Norfolk Virginia, Kiel and Wilhelmshaven where naval repairs are maximal (3). secondary bases with repair at 2 and civilian ports with no shipyards that allow troops to be embarked. You could allow this last to have repair 1 like your new rule for submarines at sea.

This would also address that question about that Spanish port that came up recently in this forum. It would require players to be more aware of the differences between ports. The strength of AA defences could mirror the repair capacity if wanted.

I think we're losing scale here. The scale of the battles that could theortically be fought for control of Greenland, Iceland or the Azores would be fought by battlion, or even company, size elite units of paratroopers, special forces and / or marines supported by a handful of ships and aircraft. While such battles would fit the scale of Battlefield Academy, which I think would be very interesting to play if someone would build these hypthetical scenarios for it, are well below the corps level scale of CEaW GS. As Borger point out in his previous post if we try to implement some mechanics for representing the unlikely potential for an axis invasion of these bases then the gain, in my opinion, is very small compared to the risk that some players will find a way (or ways) for exoploiting thiese mechanics for unintended uses.

@Stauffenberg
I agree with your thoughts, but only if you look at the real war timeline. In GS the players can change the timeline. What if the Allied player does not sent a British division to Iceland? What if the Germans try to seize Iceland in 1939? I think options like these make GS interesting as far as the game remains plausible. An Axis invasion of Iceland or the Azore may be unwise under most circumstances, but why should this not be possible?

What I would like to see in GS would be something like this:

At the beginning of the war (1939 scenario) Iceland is a neutral country. It is unoccupied and can be invaded without a fight as Iceland has no army (The initial British invasion force according to wikipedia were only 746 British marines). This would most likely result in an invasion by the Allied player in 1939 or on the first fair weather turn in 1940 with a GAR.

This would be quite historical as the British invaded only with 746 British marines and no real fighting, but stationed there about 25,000 men. Later in the war the US took over and even had 40,000 men stationed on Iceland. Both forces could be represented in GS with a GAR or even an INF. After the Allied player stationed a GAR in Iceland it would be very hard for the Axis player to take Iceland at all, if he does not secure Britain first, because it should be nearly impossible to sneak an invasion force to Iceland and then successfully capture it. The RAF and RN will be in position to make a counterstrike. If the Axis player takes Britain. Then he has a fair chance to capture Iceland in 1941 if he wants too, even if it is defended by the British.

Should the Allied not sent a British GAR in 1939 or 1940 to Iceland, then the Axis player has a chance to take Iceland by surprise, which is exactly why the British invaded Iceland in 1940 in the real war (in fact the German did not had any intention to do it, they only got interested after the British invaded). However, even in this case such an operation would be very risky, as the Axis player would need to slip by an invasion force and be there before the British capture Iceland.

I think this would be a good solution and would result in some interesting strategic decisions and game situations:

1. The Allied would have to decide if he wants to deploy a GAR to capture Iceland in 1939/1940, which would weaken the defense of Britain or the BEF In France.

2. The Axis player would have to decide if the makes a risky move for Iceland in 1939 or 1940 and be quicker then the British. Furthermore he could try to stop/hinder the British invasion of Iceland with SUBs.

3. In case the Axis player captures Iceland through a surprise attack this could lead to an interesting Sealion scenario. In case the Axis player does Sealion first, both players will be interested in holding Iceland, which also could result in interesting action.

4. The addition of Iceland as neutral power could perhaps even result in a whole new "northern strategy" for the Axis, which I think would be good for the game. Iceland and perhaps Greenland could be even used as a springboard for attacks on North America.

But these are just my 2cents