GS V3.10 possible change - Scapa Flow

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We altered the rules for fortress supply some time ago so only fortresses with PP production could give supply. This was done to make it possible to more easily mop up fortresses like the Maginot line (after the French decline an armistice) and the Siegfried line.

Scapa Flow doesn't have PP production is it will become out of supply when not linked to another city. E. g. the game played by Rkr1958 now. Could Scapa Flow have provided any supply or is it ok as is?

If it could then we need to add 1 PP to Scapa Flow and take away 1 PP somewhere else in England.

What do you think?

[richardsd]

I think scapa should get 1 pp - its a bit odd that you can't embark or land from there

[OxfordGuy3]

Maybe reduce Liverpool's production by 1 - it's a bit odd that it has as much production as Birmingham (England's second biggest city) and three times that of Leeds and Newcastle, though I guess it may be partially representing Manchester too and the fact that it was a major port.

[GogTheMild]

Leave it as it is. It seems to reflect reality and more importantly I feel that it adds to playability. (Sealion doesn't need even more disincentives.)

[TotalerKrieg]

Taking a quick look online, I agree with Gog. I don't see how Scapa Flow could provide any significant amount of supply once the rest of Great Britain was occupied.

[richardsd]

the counter is I don't see why you can't embark troops there

[ncali]

I would leave it so that Scapa Flow cannot supply independently and goes out of supply when not connected to another supply source. I'm a little confused on the separate point about embarking/disembarking. As a port, it should normally be able to do both. Does it lose that ability if it goes out of supply? If so, that's also fine as far as I'm concerned.

[richardsd]

I would leave it so that Scapa Flow cannot supply independently and goes out of supply when not connected to another supply source. I'm a little confused on the separate point about embarking/disembarking. As a port, it should normally be able to do both. Does it lose that ability if it goes out of supply? If so, that's also fine as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, if Scapa is "isolated" you can't use the port to embark the troops there - which I see as odd. Its a lot easier to put troops on a boat than it is ammunition and provisions.

Maybe the answer is not to make it an actual land hex?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Maybe Scapa Flow could be turned into a regular city without production. Then it would provide supply.

I believe all islands with a port have a city in GS to ensure supply on the island.

[richardsd]

Maybe Scapa Flow could be turned into a regular city without production. Then it would provide supply.

I believe all islands with a port have a city in GS to ensure supply on the island.

Kirkwall is small but it would make sense and not effect the play balance

[OxfordGuy3]

Maybe Scapa Flow could be turned into a regular city without production. Then it would provide supply.

I believe all islands with a port have a city in GS to ensure supply on the island.

Kirkwall is small but it would make sense and not effect the play balance

Wouldn't it mean that new builds could be placed in Scarpa Flow and/or the Port? Would it still be able to do this even if isolated from London?

Not sure if that's a good thing or not...

[Peter Stauffenberg]

No it will not. To be able to place a reinforcement you need to be in a hex in contiguous land connection through friendly home country hexes to your major capital.

You can't trace a line from Scapa Flow to London because you need to go through the port.

It's the same regarding Sardinia, Albania and Sicily. Italy can never place units there despite being in supply level 5.

So changing Scapa Flow to a city just means it will keep supply level 3 despite being blocked off from Scotland.

The question is whether we want Scapa Flow have a chance to become out of supply or not. If yes then we keep the fortress. If no then we change it to a city.

[GogTheMild]

The question is whether we want Scapa Flow have a chance to become out of supply or not. If yes then we keep the fortress. If no then we change it to a city.

I thought that that was what the vote was about. We only need to discuss how to keep S F in supply if we decide we want to. I would prefer that we didn't. That any unit sitting in Kirkwall would wither on the vine seems entirely realistic to me. The fact that it couldn't be evacuated is indeed a little unrealistic, but seems the lesser of two evils.

[pk867]

How can you have an island that has a port and be OOS when the nearby island airfields have supply. It just looks odd and does not seem logical.

[ncali]

I don't think Scapa or Kirkwall should be in supply, for that matter. I would analogize it to the Channel Islands. The Germans were allowed to occupy them after the Fall of France because they were simply too close to France (and German airfields) to defend. If the British want to supply Scapa, they should have to use sea supply.

[richardsd]

what do you mean sea supply?

[JyriErik]

I assume he means surface naval unit next to it.

Jyri

[richardsd]

that still doesn't allow disembarkation!

[BattlevonWar]

Had a game with a player where he took all of England and left Scapa Flow open to me as well as a portion of Scotland. I saw a port there and assumed like most war games at the time, well it's one Port left along with a few airfields as Islands, let's load up the Americans there and go at the Germans from the rear, lost 2 1/2 years, my opponent didn't now either

[ncali]

I assume he means surface naval unit next to it.

Jyri

Yes, that was what I meant.