Great job, once again! Looking forward to have a go at it over the weekend
Strategic Warfare... I believe we're on right track here :)
It was quite simple with 3R as you know of course.
- Allied Bomber factors vs Axis interceptor (or given context also possibly air units from map board) factors, surplus factors reducing opposite side's BRPs.
I agree it makes sense to reduce the Axis fighter and bomber replacements with TOAW, to simulate this particular rule.
Still working on Axis Subs/Allied ASW. As I remember, when Hitler ordered more subs he was told that would mean less planes and panzers, so he changed his mind. So for this scenario a choice of more subs would reduce plane and panzer replacements, while affecting Allied Sea Transport Capacity, Murmansk Convoys and Lend-Lease. Maybe the Germans would also receive less Fleet Replacements.
- Axis submarine factors vs Allied Anti-Submarine Warfare factors, surplus factors reducing opposite sides BRPs.
Well, at the end of the day, with 3R, building either submarines or interceptors was about allocating BRPs to SW, instead of using them for creating any type of on-map units.
So why not reducing armored units and planes as well.
I sort of like the idea of reducing Fleet replacements particularly, to have these two Navy 'arms' fight each other. I guess deciding to have less Fleet replacements only would be too much of an easy call, though, as German fleet will become vastly outnumbered anyway. So losing armored units too would be a good 'penalty' when using this TO.
Perhaps not touch plane replacements any more though, as they are already reduced when opting for Creating Interceptors TO?
< Message edited by Crossroads -- 1/18/2013 1:33:46 PM >
Campaign Series Legion
CS: East Front III | CS: Vietnam IN-THE-WORKS
CS: Middle East 1948-1985 2.0 DUE OUT SOON
JTCS: West Front 2.0 * East Front II 2.0 * Rising Sun 2.0