RE: Why all of the off map areas?

RE: Why all of the off map areas? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

wdolson -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 1:38:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undercovergeek but they do eventually reappear in an 'attackable' hex? not just their destination? and if this is the case - is there any reason why i just wouldnt plant a load of subs of a SCTF at the 'reappear' hex? quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown TFs do appear at the map edge. If the Allied player does not vary their routing then TFs moving from, say, Cape Town to Perth would indeed enter the map at a fairly predictable location, but sensible Allied players would vary the routing to avoid this (and/or maybe send ASW TFs to that area?). Andrew Just to add a couple of cents... The places where off map TFs tend to enter the map are all a long ways from Japanese bases. A surface TF at an exit location would be tough to do. Some of the longest range Japanese subs might have some loiter time at an exit hex, but they might go all that distance to sit in vain if the Allied player isn't happening to use that particular route at that time. The Allies can always add escorts to their off map convoys, or have the off map convoys hook up with escorts when they get to the base on the map edge. That would be wise to do anyway. A IJN sub with damage is going to have a very long trip home. With Japanese damage control being what it is, they might not make it. Bill

EUBanana -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 1:47:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson The Allies can always add escorts to their off map convoys, or have the off map convoys hook up with escorts when they get to the base on the map edge. That would be wise to do anyway. I would have thought the Allies, at least in 1942, would be quite stretched to heavily escort every convoy they need, though. I know in WITP I was forced to have unescorted convoys for much of the map, and that was just to supply Noumea/Brisbane. Furthermore I'd figure that if the Japanese were serious about interdicting some convoy, they'd send a pretty heavy force. If the Japanese committed 3 or 4 heavy cruisers, say, I doubt any convoy they found would be likely to hold that off. Admittedly my logistical talents are negligible... and maybe the Colorado class BBs finally found a use.

undercovergeek -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 1:51:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: undercovergeek i would hope it doesnt magically appear - im not usually in agreement with pad152 - but if you can theres no point in isolating Oz, or indeed shutting down the eastern supply route to it surely? That's right. no "magic" appearence at the destination base. So in the example being discussed the Alled TF moving to Perth would appear on the left map edge, and is able to be detected and attacked while moving from there to Perth. Andrew thankyou for your many replies - as always very helpful

undercovergeek -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 1:55:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SuluSea Boy, no matter how much effort someone puts into a game to simulate WW2 conditions there will always be one person whining because it hurts their gameplay strategy. if this is directed at me - my gameplay strategy is decided by the rules of the game, if i need a new strategy i need to know the rules, simple as that, i dont care if the US can ship in supplies tied to dolphins, as long as someone is going to give me anti dolphin nets and tell me how to use them thats fine. No whining here my post misinterprating friend - just rule clarification [:)]

TheTomDude -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 2:18:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson Someone also asked about sending British troops to the Aleutians. If you really want to, you can, but it's going to be a heck of a long voyage, more than 3/4 of the way around the world. The only reason I can think of why anyone would want to do it would be as an experiment. In a real game it's so impractical it would be pretty boneheaded to do. I would never do it. It would weaken my already weak forces in the Far East and those units would be unavailable for more than a month. Bill Bill, the question was not if I could do it as a player (I knew I could), but it was rather an example if the AI can and will use off-map areas to ship units "around the globe". Or if it sticks to the historical scenario.

Sardaukar -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 2:20:27 PM)
Well, if IJN can spare 3-4 CAs to interdict convoys to Perth....they'd be long way from home. Realistic home bases for them being Singapore/Soerabaja/Batavia. I'd hate to have heavy combat and be that far from base, even if it netted a convoy. It could easily mean loss of 1-2 CAs if things turn bad. Like finding out that you just tried to intercept CV TF...or that convoy had couple of cruisers in it. [8D]

EUBanana -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 2:21:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar Well, if IJN can spare 3-4 CAs to interdict convoys to Perth....they'd be long way from home. Realistic home bases for them being Singapore/Soerabaja/Batavia. I'd hate to have heavy combat and be that far from base, even if it netted a convoy. It could easily mean loss of 1-2 CAs if things turn bad. Like finding out that you just tried to intercept CV TF...or that convoy had couple of cruisers in it. [8D] Surprises like that are why the game is fun. [:D]

Charles2222 -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 3:25:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Some of us feel those "off map" places were mandatory for historic reasons. At least 2 American divisions staged from Panama and never set foot anywhere near the west coast of CONUS. If Panama can't be attacked by the Japanese it has no effect on the game, you might as well place troops on the moon. There was actually a plan late in the war to hit the canal by submarines laden with aircraft. I don't recall the details, but some of the submarines had difficulties of another sort shortly before that and it was called off.

jeffk3510 -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 9:03:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 I played the CHS mod for WITP, and off map area for British forces coming into India made sense but, Panama didn't! I mean just have stuff show up on the west cost of the US/Canada a week later. In the AE manual I see off map areas for the Soviet Union, Eastern Canada, Eastern US, Monbasa, Cap Town, Port Stanley, plus others. I just don't see the reason for most of these and forcing the player to moving troops, ships, supplies, etc. not only across the pacific but, also move them to/from all these other off map places seems like a bit. What the pacific map wasn't big enough, there wasn't enough already for the player to do? What is the purpose of these? What does this add to the game other than waste player time? If you don't like it, don't buy it.

wdolson -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 2:30:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson Someone also asked about sending British troops to the Aleutians. If you really want to, you can, but it's going to be a heck of a long voyage, more than 3/4 of the way around the world. The only reason I can think of why anyone would want to do it would be as an experiment. In a real game it's so impractical it would be pretty boneheaded to do. I would never do it. It would weaken my already weak forces in the Far East and those units would be unavailable for more than a month. Bill quote: ORIGINAL: TheTomDude Bill, the question was not if I could do it as a player (I knew I could), but it was rather an example if the AI can and will use off-map areas to ship units "around the globe". Or if it sticks to the historical scenario. I would be very surprised if the AI moved British troops out of the Burma-India theater. The AI has some surprises programmed in, but there is nothing vastly ahistorical like that. Bill

wdolson -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 2:43:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Some of us feel those "off map" places were mandatory for historic reasons. At least 2 American divisions staged from Panama and never set foot anywhere near the west coast of CONUS. quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 If Panama can't be attacked by the Japanese it has no effect on the game, you might as well place troops on the moon. quote: ORIGINAL: Charles_22 There was actually a plan late in the war to hit the canal by submarines laden with aircraft. I don't recall the details, but some of the submarines had difficulties of another sort shortly before that and it was called off. The I-400 class could carry 3 Serian float plane/bombers. Three subs were built. http://www.ww2pacific.com/i-400.html The plans to attack the Panama Canal were really a pipe dream. The subs could only put a grand total of nine bombers carrying one bomb each over the canal. The US had fighter units permanently based at the canal and would likely have scrambled fighters if unusual blips showed up on the radar. If they got lucky, some may have been able to drop their bombs, but the plan was to take out the gates on the locks. The British discovered when they attacked the dams in the Ruhr Valley that bombing something like that wouldn't be easy. The pressure wave from a near miss might have done some damage to the locks, but only a direct hit would take them out. It's highly unlikely the Japanese would have achieved any success and they may have lost all three subs. The I-400s were the largest subs built until the nuclear subs were built. They would have been relatively easy to find and would have been very vulnerable on the surface while getting the planes ready for launch. The planes were carried with the wings detached and required time to mount the wings. The US had radar equipped ASW aircraft based at the canal that would have been patrolling. The subs would have shown up like a CL on radar and almost certainly would have been investigated. If the US planes attacked, the subs would have had a tough time doing a crash dive with planes on deck and the water tight hanger door open. Even if the US planes were slow to attack, the Japanese most likely would have gotten spooked and jettisoned the planes to submerge. Either way, the mission would have been a failure. Another factor would have been the poor quality of Japanese pilots at that point in the war. How accurate could their bombing be? Bill

pad152 -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 5:01:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 In Witp if you wanted to get ships to India or Australia from the west coast of the US they had to sail across the map but, now in AE you can used the magical off map transport system where ships can't spotted or attacked, how is that not an advantage to the allied player? The allied player could send a carrier battle group or half the fleet this way. This makes the strategy of trying to cut off supplies to Australia mood, because the Allies can send everything through the magical back door. Well, you know, the world really is round, despite what the Japanese high command might wish. [:D] I don't see much of a problem here though? I presume it would take a LONG time to sail from San Francisco eastwards to Perth, much longer than it would take to sail to Brisbane. ...and IJ could always just take or interdict Perth to be sure? The point is this, in AE Japan could take every base south of Japan, yet the allies can still sail to Australia and India without sailing anywhere near a Japanese base! If that isn't an advantage(cheating, gamey, etc, etc) to the allies what is?

pad152 -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 5:06:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Some of us feel those "off map" places were mandatory for historic reasons. At least 2 American divisions staged from Panama and never set foot anywhere near the west coast of CONUS. quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 If Panama can't be attacked by the Japanese it has no effect on the game, you might as well place troops on the moon. quote: ORIGINAL: Charles_22 There was actually a plan late in the war to hit the canal by submarines laden with aircraft. I don't recall the details, but some of the submarines had difficulties of another sort shortly before that and it was called off. The I-400 class could carry 3 Serian float plane/bombers. Three subs were built. http://www.ww2pacific.com/i-400.html The plans to attack the Panama Canal were really a pipe dream. The subs could only put a grand total of nine bombers carrying one bomb each over the canal. The US had fighter units permanently based at the canal and would likely have scrambled fighters if unusual blips showed up on the radar. If they got lucky, some may have been able to drop their bombs, but the plan was to take out the gates on the locks. The British discovered when they attacked the dams in the Ruhr Valley that bombing something like that wouldn't be easy. The pressure wave from a near miss might have done some damage to the locks, but only a direct hit would take them out. It's highly unlikely the Japanese would have achieved any success and they may have lost all three subs. The I-400s were the largest subs built until the nuclear subs were built. They would have been relatively easy to find and would have been very vulnerable on the surface while getting the planes ready for launch. The planes were carried with the wings detached and required time to mount the wings. The US had radar equipped ASW aircraft based at the canal that would have been patrolling. The subs would have shown up like a CL on radar and almost certainly would have been investigated. If the US planes attacked, the subs would have had a tough time doing a crash dive with planes on deck and the water tight hanger door open. Even if the US planes were slow to attack, the Japanese most likely would have gotten spooked and jettisoned the planes to submerge. Either way, the mission would have been a failure. Another factor would have been the poor quality of Japanese pilots at that point in the war. How accurate could their bombing be? Bill All this is well known and posted about 5 years ago, the fact remains, that in AE Japan can't attack Panama! So any thing based there is off limits.

pad152 -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 5:14:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeffk3510 quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 I played the CHS mod for WITP, and off map area for British forces coming into India made sense but, Panama didn't! I mean just have stuff show up on the west cost of the US/Canada a week later. In the AE manual I see off map areas for the Soviet Union, Eastern Canada, Eastern US, Monbasa, Cap Town, Port Stanley, plus others. I just don't see the reason for most of these and forcing the player to moving troops, ships, supplies, etc. not only across the pacific but, also move them to/from all these other off map places seems like a bit. What the pacific map wasn't big enough, there wasn't enough already for the player to do? What is the purpose of these? What does this add to the game other than waste player time? If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's called having a debate! The AI when playing Japan may take Canton, Fiji and several other southern bases to try cutting the supply lines to India and Australia, but the allied player now doesn't need to sail near them by using the off map method to ship stuff! Do you think that's fare?

rogueusmc -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 5:32:18 AM)
Could they have done it in real life?..I mean, gone the long way around?

n01487477 -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 5:47:28 AM)
Oh it is fair in this design Pad152, but I get your point and would like to expand it somewhat. The real issue for me is that there is no real incentive for the Allies to defend anything in the South Pacific. If there is a next iteration of WITP ala II, then not only should VP's be used but maybe PP's that are now accumulated at a fixed rate should be formulated by national morale or some such indicator ensuring that some bases have to be defended. I think it unacceptable that the Japanese can rampage around the map as much as the Allies can hole up and do nothing, when Noumea, New Zealand etc are invaded basically cause they don't need to. I haven't thought too much about how it could be totally fixed, but I guess in the end you need to pick an opponent who will come out and play beyond the scope of hindsight regarding what they'll have in '44 and where the war will ultimately go. I posted some of my thoughts here on my AAR about this: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1900084 As to the original posting about troops arriving a week later, well I'd guess that the arrival date has been adjusted to reflect the transportation from Europe or the East Coast anyway. --Damian-- (I'm not an accountant [:D][:D] - in regard to the last time I debated you)

pad152 -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 6:45:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: n01487477 Oh it is fair in this design Pad152, but I get your point and would like to expand it somewhat. The real issue for me is that there is no real incentive for the Allies to defend anything in the South Pacific. If there is a next iteration of WITP ala II, then not only should VP's be used but maybe PP's that are now accumulated at a fixed rate should be formulated by national morale or some such indicator ensuring that some bases have to be defended. I think it unacceptable that the Japanese can rampage around the map as much as the Allies can hole up and do nothing, when Noumea, New Zealand etc are invaded basically cause they don't need to. I haven't thought too much about how it could be totally fixed, but I guess in the end you need to pick an opponent who will come out and play beyond the scope of hindsight regarding what they'll have in '44 and where the war will ultimately go. I posted some of my thoughts here on my AAR about this: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1900084 As to the original posting about troops arriving a week later, well I'd guess that the arrival date has been adjusted to reflect the transportation from Europe or the East Coast anyway. --Damian-- (I'm not an accountant [:D][:D] - in regard to the last time I debated you) Andrew, stated this can be fixed by the player with the editor (removing/disable some of this map movement), I hope that's true. I'm just surprised that this is even in AE, it seems like such an advantage to the allied player. I think both players should be forced to move their forces on the same map.

Sardaukar -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 6:47:48 AM)
Maybe because historically they had that ability...[8D]

Andy Mac -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 6:55:00 AM)
Correct historically if the japanese cut off Australia from USA then the allies COULD have went the long way round - its not efficient but it could be done its desperation measures but it can be done as it could have been in the real war

Andy Mac -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 6:56:38 AM)
I didnt say you could remove the movement what I said was you could bring on MAP all the ships and LCU's arriving there and move the free supply to an on map location so you dont need to use the off map bases very different from removing something as fundamental to AE as the off map movement boxes. Andy

wdolson -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 7:05:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 Andrew, stated this can be fixed by the player with the editor (removing/disable some of this map movement), I hope that's true. I'm just surprised that this is even in AE, it seems like such an advantage to the allied player. I think both players should be forced to move their forces on the same map. It really isn't such a huge advantage. The offmap trip the long way around to Australia is very long. In the first year or so the Allies are going to find merchant ships tight. Especially long haul merchant ships. When we were testing moving supplies from Cape Town to India, Allied players found that while doable, it sucked up most of their longest range merchant ships. The haul to Australia from Cape Town is even further than India with very little in the way of bases to stop and get a refill. Unless the Japanese have occupied the entire South Pacific, it is always much more economical for the Allies to ship supplies to Australia hooking south of Japanese possessions in the Central and South Pacific. I have played AE as the Allies and I didn't see your concerns as a serious consideration. In the real world the Allies could ship supplies and troops via the southern route around Africa. They did it very little for the same reasons the Allies don't do it much in AE. It's a very long trip and very taxing on your limited resources. The Allies don't have the bounty of merchies and supplies they had in WitP. At least not in 1942. Tying up all your valuable long range merchant ships on world cruises just to avoid the occasional Japanese sub is a foolish choice and an Allied player who does it will likely end up in worse shape down the line because a lot less supply is getting to Australia than would make it with the on map route. If it takes twice the time and twice the fuel to go the long way (I haven't counted hexes, but that's a rough guess), you will be delivering half the cargo to Australia than using the on map route. If you want to move something from the eastern Pacific (near or in the US) to the Indian Ocean, it might be reasonable to do, but it's going to be costly in time and effort. You have the disadvantage of not having played the game. It really isn't as bad as you think. Bill

pad152 -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 7:09:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rogueusmc Could they have done it in real life?..I mean, gone the long way around? This is a good question, I would say no for two reasons. 1. There were no bases/refueling stops in south Africa on the way to India/Australia, North Africa may have to have been taken first so southern bases could be securely built there to protect the shipping lanes. The US lost alot of shipping off the east coast of the US, the Atlantic was not a very save place for shipping in 1942. 2. US policy was suppose to be Europe first, yet by early 1943 we had more man/ships in the pacific than we had in Europe, our allies didn't like it, and I not sure we would have gotten away with it if we had to ship everything through the Atlantic. Even congress and senate where not fully aware of the build up in the pacific vs. Europe. There was still a real fear back then, Japan could invade the west coast of the US, which would have kept what was left of the pacific fleet on the west coast & Peal Harbor.

Andrew Brown -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 8:27:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 quote: ORIGINAL: rogueusmc Could they have done it in real life?..I mean, gone the long way around? This is a good question, I would say no for two reasons. 1. There were no bases/refueling stops in south Africa on the way to India/Australia, North Africa may have to have been taken first so southern bases could be securely built there to protect the shipping lanes. The US lost alot of shipping off the east coast of the US, the Atlantic was not a very save place for shipping in 1942. 2. US policy was suppose to be Europe first, yet by early 1943 we had more man/ships in the pacific than we had in Europe, our allies didn't like it, and I not sure we would have gotten away with it if we had to ship everything through the Atlantic. Even congress and senate where not fully aware of the build up in the pacific vs. Europe. There was still a real fear back then, Japan could invade the west coast of the US, which would have kept what was left of the pacific fleet on the west coast & Peal Harbor. The USA did ship forces to the CBI via the Atlantic. And of course many ships took this route from the UK, such as the WS convoys, so I am not sure where you get the idea from that it was impossible. Here is just one example - the SS Mariposa made two such voyages to the CBi from the USA in 1942/1943, the first via Freetown, Cape Town to Karachi, and the second via Rio and Aden. Details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Mariposa So far from being impossible, it was routine. US air units usually ferried across the Atlantic by air, thence via the Middle East to India. So this was all "off map" as well. However we decided not to allow air units to fly to/from off-map bases. Perhaps we should consider allowing that though. One thing I forgot to mention previously - when moving from off-map base to another off-map base, air and ground units do not need to be provided with ships. It is assumed that other ships, not otherwise represented in the game, perform this "off map transport" function. The units simply move to the other off-map base by a type of strategic movement. However for transport to/from the main map, real transport ships do need to be provided. Andrew

m10bob -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 8:44:34 AM)
Andrew..........I have always been a fan of your maps, and the "expanded " maps in particular. If I understand what I have read correctly, Allied units staging from the off map places will be visible to the Allied player, (but I don't think you use the "snail paths" ala RHS? If this is correct, will putting a cursor over a convoy tell me how many days till it re-enters the map, or will I need to keep books? Thank you.[&o]

EUBanana -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 8:56:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 The point is this, in AE Japan could take every base south of Japan, yet the allies can still sail to Australia and India without sailing anywhere near a Japanese base! If that isn't an advantage(cheating, gamey, etc, etc) to the allies what is? [&:] Is the world round, or not? I really don't get this issue.

undercovergeek -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 9:27:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 The point is this, in AE Japan could take every base south of Japan, yet the allies can still sail to Australia and India without sailing anywhere near a Japanese base! If that isn't an advantage(cheating, gamey, etc, etc) to the allies what is? but you can still hit them when they arrive on the west coast

aciddrinker -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 9:55:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 quote: ORIGINAL: Fishbed Man, what's the fuss about? First time I hear about a WITPer complaining about having too much... stuff?! You had a bad day or what? Everyone thinks this makes the game richer, as an allied player you just have the same units, but this time at least you can deal with them sending them across the map without having to worry about a Japanese interception, send your assets where you need them... You don't need to involve yourself more than you'd do without them, and still you have access to dozens of new possibilities... Is that because they're nothing left to complain about that I see to see such pain ni the a** threads all over there or what? The focus of the game should be on planing and conducting combat operations in the Pacific without having to worry about stuff in the Atlantic or anywhere else. No1 force you to buy and play this game. You have allways choice.

Kereguelen -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 10:52:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 quote: ORIGINAL: rogueusmc Could they have done it in real life?..I mean, gone the long way around? This is a good question, I would say no for two reasons. 1. There were no bases/refueling stops in south Africa on the way to India/Australia, North Africa may have to have been taken first so southern bases could be securely built there to protect the shipping lanes. The US lost alot of shipping off the east coast of the US, the Atlantic was not a very save place for shipping in 1942. 2. US policy was suppose to be Europe first, yet by early 1943 we had more man/ships in the pacific than we had in Europe, our allies didn't like it, and I not sure we would have gotten away with it if we had to ship everything through the Atlantic. Even congress and senate where not fully aware of the build up in the pacific vs. Europe. There was still a real fear back then, Japan could invade the west coast of the US, which would have kept what was left of the pacific fleet on the west coast & Peal Harbor. Cape Town and Durban were big and important ports even before the Pacific War began. The convoy route around the Cape was a true 'Highway of the Empire' for the British. And there was another essential convoy route from Fremantle to Cape Town (to transport goods, mainly cattle, from Australia to the UK).

Andrew Brown -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 12:37:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob If I understand what I have read correctly, Allied units staging from the off map places will be visible to the Allied player, (but I don't think you use the "snail paths" ala RHS? No snail paths [:)] There are "snail paths" drawn on the map edges, but they are for illustration only, to show which off-map areas and/or map edges connect to which. quote: If this is correct, will putting a cursor over a convoy tell me how many days till it re-enters the map, or will I need to keep books? Now that is a good idea! I have added it to the feature request list. You don't need to keep books as the TF display gives the number of days before arrival, but having it in the mouseover would be a lot more convenient, I agree. Andrew

m10bob -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/16/2009 12:43:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob If I understand what I have read correctly, Allied units staging from the off map places will be visible to the Allied player, (but I don't think you use the "snail paths" ala RHS? No snail paths [:)] There are "snail paths" drawn on the map edges, but they are for illustration only, to show which off-map areas and/or map edges connect to which. quote: If this is correct, will putting a cursor over a convoy tell me how many days till it re-enters the map, or will I need to keep books? Now that is a good idea! I have added it to the feature request list. You don't need to keep books as the TF display gives the number of days before arrival, but having it in the mouseover would be a lot more convenient, I agree. Andrew Thank you!..(After all these years, I have finally contributed something??) Great minds think alike.[:)]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.234375