[WarInEur] SB bases and overrun

[sgminfo]

It's a valid point, and one I am not adverse to supporting. The effects 
of such a disruption to Bomber Command's whole regime would have been 
very difficult to forsee with any certainty, including the vital 
training regime being utilised in the UK that was so vital to bringing 
crews to operational readiness.


-|steve|-



Hansen wrote:
> Steve:
>
> The question here is interlinked with new options, which have a bearing 
> on this.
>
>
> What do we do about SB bases overrun?
>
> In the new version this is not a trivial unlikely point...
>
> 1.Bomber bases can be deployed early in the game, if you are running the 
> early war Bomber command feature.
>
> So they can be on the board when England is anything but a secure base 
> of operations.
>
> The Germans may have sealion selected
>
> These combinations put the bomber bases right into the potential front line.
>
>
> In terms of treatment
>
> I would propose:-
>
> An overrun bomber base is:-
> 1.Removed from play.
> 2.Put on the recycle track to reappear 10 cycles later
> 3.When reappearing takes the normal time to redeploy as though a new 
> bomber base.
> 4.All SBs located on that base at the time of loss are treated as 
> destroyed and recycle in the same volumes and in the normal way as all 
> other shot down SBs are treated...
>
> This adds a new incentive to a wrecking sealion option, an attempt to so 
> disrupt bomber command, such  that the bombing campaign is seriously 
> disrupted, and with the new lrngthened accuracy track, a serious brake 
> can be made on the rise of strategic bombing as a full blown campaign.
>
>
> -|steve|-
>
> John:
> I would propose that the time to reappear be variable. Set a minimum time,
> then a series of random roles to re-establish the SB and a maximum time. So
> if the players have access to the charts they know the range of time and the
> random chance per cycle within that range. It may be before 10 cycles or may
> be after ten cycles.
>
> I would also consider the question of a random chance for losing "accuracy".
> I think the accuracy is supposed to reflect the forces learning their 'job'
> more than a march of technological improvements. As such, the loss of
> navigators, bombardiers, pilots, etc could set this back. So the randomness
> lets no loss in accuracy (enough of the key people are evacuated) to some
> loss of accuracy (what percentage of key people are lost).
>
> The bottom line is that if the allies allow a SB to be overrun, they have
> made a grave tactical error. The penalty should be a real one, but since we
> aren't simulating on the individual pilot level, let there be a random
> element to reflect how severe the penalty is.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WarInEur mailing list
> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
>
>