One more question

[gerones]

Has anybody thought about those huge Luftwaffe deployments in Finland? (as it happened in my interrupted game against Schnurri or currently as we have seen in Zechi vs supermax AAR). Obviously, in the real war there was not possible to do that because to maintain such air force far from Germany mainland (6 fighter units, 7 tactical bombers, etc.) would have been near to impossible. So I was thinking about to implement a rule limiting the number of air units deployed in supply 3 level territories as Finland although this would also serve for North Africa (I have also seen huge Luftwaffe air fleets after the french armistice was rejected and once Gibraltar and Vichy North Africa were conquered). The game would gain a little bit more of realism with such rule IMO.

[joerock22]

I think the realism you would gain is less than the playability you would lose.

The whole reason air units can move to any land hex on the map is because we figure the support crew can scrounge together enough flat land and prepare adequate airfields in the 20 days it takes to rebase. (In the later versions of GS, air units can't rebase to mountains because this assumption does not work there). Maybe it is a bit ahistorical if the entire Luftwaffe moves to Finland, but who's to say the Germans couldn't have pulled it off if they wanted to? And with Finland at least it would have been a short flight or sail to Germany to bring in supplies.

To me, GS is a game that is based in history but allows players to stray from the historical path in reasonable ways. And I think concentrating air power in a level 3 supply zone is reasonable. Unlike basing planes in mountains, I think it could be done if the Axis or Allies wanted to do it.

So ultimately, I can't support this proposal.

[rkr1958]

I completely agree with what Joe wrote. And, also we are really trying to get GSv2.10 out.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We have to look at the reason people send air units to Finland. It's to avoid being hit by severe winter. That's also why they Axis send air units to the Baltic countries, eastern Poland and Romania just prior to the severe winter hits in Russia.

That's maybe a bit gamey, but I don't think we need to prevent it. Remember that the air units can't support the German operations except in the far north if the Axis managed to get to the historical line. You don't have range for your fighters to protect your front line units except near Leningrad.

So the Russians will instead have to focus on their winter offensive where the Luftwaffe can't intercept except when in severe winter.

Inside Finland the air units will still suffer from reduced attack values since they're in an area with winter while severe winter exists in Russia. So all the gain is not losing 20 efficiency.

[gerones]

I see your points but may be finally these huge air deployments in supply level 3 territories, that obviously would have resulted in serious supply issues in the real war, can be treated in a near future similarly as North Africa axis supply rule. So in case of a exceeded max number of air units possible to deploy in a supply level 3 zone this would have a cost in PP´s.

Taking my AAR vs Schnurri again as an example I really see those 7 tactical bomber units in Finland as a rather unrealistic thing that even possible to do in a game it would have to have some consequences via penalties.

• 

Maybe it is a bit ahistorical if the entire Luftwaffe moves to Finland, but who's to say the Germans couldn't have pulled it off if they wanted to? And with Finland at least it would have been a short flight or sail to Germany to bring in supplies.

Those extra flights or sails for maintaining such air force in Finland would undoubtedly have had an additional supply cost that could be reflected in the game via PP´s penalty. So I am finally not saying that deploying such air force in Finland would have not been possible but would have been much more expensive.

[Diplomaticus]

I disagree that this is a problem worth changing the game for.

Consider that the aircraft in Finland are only getting supply '3', which means lowered Effectiveness. That reflects the limited supply you're talking about. And if the Axis seize Leningrad and open up '4' supply in Finland, that's realistic too, since the rail connection would take care of the supply issue you're worried about.

[gerones]

I disagree that this is a problem worth changing the game for.

Consider that the aircraft in Finland are only getting supply '3', which means lowered Effectiveness. That reflects the limited supply you're talking about. And if the Axis seize Leningrad and open up '4' supply in Finland, that's realistic too, since the rail connection would take care of the supply issue you're worried about.

Axis air units in North Africa also get lowered their effectiveness because supply level 3 but apart from this they also have a limitation in the number of units that can be deployed there because of North Africa supply rule so if this limit is exceeded this have a cost in PP´s. So my proposed rule for 3 supply level zones would work similarly as that current NA supply rule. Both rules will be based on similar supply issues arguments. This rule would make a little bit more expensive e.g. the 1 turn conquest of both Leningrad and Tallin thus destroying all Black soviet fleet in one single turn that seems rather easy to accomplish bringing 7 or more tactical bombers to Finland.

We have to keep in mind that CEAW GS abstractly represents supply but we shouldn´t make this excessively abstract.

Of course in case of Leningrad conquered and once opened supply level 4 to Finland this rule would not be applied and it will be up to the players to make such deployments.

We could e.g. set a limit in 5 air units possible to deploy in supply level 3 without a penalty which seems pretty enough.