Rule Clarifications

[Kaiser Kirk]

I get PMs or sometimes it comes up in threads about "can I do this", that require rule interpretations.
I thought I'd stop and post the last three.


I) basically : Can I expand from someone else's 'Port Symbol'.
The 'Port Symbols' represent well supplied harbors which offer places to depot supplies, garrison and train your forces.
From those you can do 'over land" expansion to adjacent provinces.
Or refuel and send an amphibious force elsewhere.

II) 1920 Capital ship Arch removes limits on calibers....what where the limits?
After examination, the removal of limits seems to be to allow the turreted quickfire guns on ships as Nelson, Dunquerque, Littorio, Richeliu
At the time the techs were written, SS had a limiter on the "QF" tag, to 165mm or less.

As such,
Main Gun : 211mm +
Secondary Gun : 166-210mm
Tertiary Gun : 0-165mm (QF capable).   These are the ones unlocked by the 1920 Capital Ship Tech.

III) Associated to the above.
Turret development is governed by the Capital ship tech
Mount & Hoist development is governed by the Cruiser tech

[Desertfox]

I have a rule question. Colonial expansion is only allowed 1 territory away from currently controlled land, but what about wartime scenarios? Say country A wants to target Country B colony, but there is an unclaimed territory in the middle? Would Country A have to take the territory first (in one half) then attack B's territory in the next half, or could A simply cross (but not take) the empty territory and attack B directly in the same half? Kind of how amphibious assaults are allowed on non-port locations in wartime but not in peacetime.

[snip]

looks at map

I think I know where this question is about

[Jefgte]

I think I know where this question is about

I understand too...

=> "Gunners, to your turrets"

Jef   >:(

[The Rock Doctor]

I am completely clueless but that will just make for a fun surprise later.

[Desertfox]

Ya'll are too paranoid! Just trying to figure out how vulnerable certain ones of my colonies are. After all I'm not the one that is planning for war at the moment...

[snip]

Who is then? Spill the beans :P

[TacCovert4]

Yeah, who is it?  I have zero amphibious operations planned going forward, no need, Oklahoma and Arizona are big enough areas to colonize.

[Desertfox]

If I read the news correctly there is a party planned for the Bahamas! I just put in my order of extra large popcorn.

[TacCovert4]

I'd rather there not be.  But as in all things, we shall see.

[snip]

I mean, we are talking about it and its no great secret that Rome is unhappy about the current occupant of the Southern Bahamas. Things have just progressed on that front faster than they would have without San Diego.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I have a rule question. Colonial expansion is only allowed 1 territory away from currently controlled land, but what about wartime scenarios? Say country A wants to target Country B colony, but there is an unclaimed territory in the middle? Would Country A have to take the territory first (in one half) then attack B's territory in the next half, or could A simply cross (but not take) the empty territory and attack B directly in the same half? Kind of how amphibious assaults are allowed on non-port locations in wartime but not in peacetime.

First - A note on Amphibious assaults - you'll notice in my working draft, if at the end of the 6 month turn, the amphibious force has not obtained a port, they start to suffer supply penalties.
Second - For as long as that amphibious force is there, there are ships anchored offshore loading/unloading tons of supplies to lighters which then try to make it in to the shore. This is highly vulnerable to a naval strike.

As for the main question,
I've thought about the issue in the past.
As for overland offenses, this should be where the Land Logistics come into play. Those will limit both the "depth" of the assault and # units, from your developed provinces.

There would be a marching time through the Unoccupied province. The nature of the Real-world terrain 'in between' should matter.
Probably serving as a 'chokepoint' for supply transit and so limiting how many forces can be supplied on the far end.

That terrain should also eventually get worked into the land combat model as well.

That supply line would then be subject to interdiction by the foe, or severing by unhappy locals if unconquered.
So it might be advantageous to conquer and garrison the province as well.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I will also toss out the fact that water transport is extremely more efficient than land transport.
On land, rail is ~6-8x more efficient than trucks. But that's a developed province.

Undeveloped provinces will have some trade routes which may be drivable/developable, so some truck traffic (depending on tech), but mostly pack animal
The ability to widen/improve would be terrain limited.

All just considerations with long supply lines.

[Desertfox]

So in summary, doable but very difficult, basically have to be "next door". Good to know I can relax a bit.

[Kaiser Kirk]

So in summary, doable but very difficult, basically have to be "next door". Good to know I can relax a bit.

Currently yes.
It will become more viable with technology
and if the intervening terrain is easily passable.
Supply through Jungle or Mountains will always be very hard.
Forest and Hills next
Then desert
while plains will be fairly easy.