Flight Across Sahara



  • Why shouldn’t planes be able to move over the Sahara?  I don’t see how a desert would block flight, as it does in all the other AA games.  Same goes for the Himalayas.



  • @dakgoalie38:

    Why shouldn’t planes be able to move over the Sahara?  I don’t see how a desert would block flight, as it does in all the other AA games.  Same goes for the Himalayas.

    You obviously have never heard of the Saharan or Himalayan Gremlins. Any planes that attempted to cross those areas were never heard from again. Very similar to the Bermuda Triangle, only worse.



  • Maybe the Saharas, but I highly doubt planes would ever be able to fly over the himalayas



  • @bennyboyg:

    Maybe the Saharas, but I highly doubt planes would ever be able to fly over the himalayas

    Most WW2 fighters could reach altitudes of just over 30,000 feet.  Mt. Everest, the tallest mountain in the Himalayas, is just over 29,000 feet.  And planes travelling over the Himalayas would most likely choose a path that takes them over valleys, not over the tallest mountain in the world.

    “By whatever name, the route was critical, an aerial highway over some of the world’s highest mountains, a path flown by hundreds of U.S. aircraft ferrying supplies to the Chinese Army so it could stay in the fight against Japan.”



  • Actually, there was an operation flying supplies “Over the Hump” as the route over the Himalayas was called.  However, a steep price was paid as per the following quote:

    Flying over the Hump proved to be an extremely hazardous undertaking for Allied flight crews. The air route wound its way into the high mountains and deep gorges between north Burma and west China, where violent turbulence, 125 to 200-mph winds,[10][41]  icing, and instrument weather conditions were a regular occurrence.
    ```…At times, monthly aircraft losses totalled 50% of all aircraft then in service along the route. A byproduct of the numerous air crashes was a local boom in native wares made from aluminium crash debris.[2]
    
    The full article can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hump
    
    For game purposes,IMHO, the Hump constitutes a no-fly zone.  At the very least, a die roll for each aircraft crossing with a minimum one-third (2 or less on 1d6) of crashing.  That would be enough for me to keep my aircraft from attempting to fly across.
    
    The Sahara was another problem and I believe the British flew replacement aircraft around the Sahara (to the south) to reach Egypt.  However, I do not have a reference for that as of yet.


  • Planes today avoid the Himalayas if at all possible. Even the slightest fog can be deadly.

    The Sahara, well that’s another matter.


  • TripleA

    @dakgoalie38:

    Why shouldn’t planes be able to move over the Sahara?  I don’t see how a desert would block flight, as it does in all the other AA games.  Same goes for the Himalayas.

    in past aaa games the designers said that it was done for game play reasons. so they did not have to have a matrix for which unit types can move across which terrain type territory. it is easier for the gamer just to remember that a group of territories is unpassable to all units.

    i think the designers did a good job of making it simple enough to remember most rules. i would not want to have desert, mountain, marsh, forrest, urban, and etc… territories that all allow different units different movement characteristics.



  • @Tralis:

    Planes today avoid the Himalayas if at all possible. Even the slightest fog can be deadly.

    The Sahara, well that’s another matter.

    I can’t seem to find any info on planes flying across the Sahara, probably because there wasn’t much of a need.



  • Exactly! you CAN fly them down south to French and UK parts of Africa. but why would you do that? those territories are out of the way, and not strategic for either side.  Which sounds smarter 5 fighters in France? or five fighters in a territory south of Algeriea?



  • @idk_iam_swiss:

    Exactly! you CAN fly them down south to French and UK parts of Africa. but why would you do that? those territories are out of the way, and not strategic for either side.  Which sounds smarter 5 fighters in France? or five fighters in a territory south of Algeriea?

    Which sounds smarter 5 mech infantry in Manchuria? or five mech infantry in the Solomon Islands?  Since mech infantry don’t get any advantages on islands, should we ban them from landing on islands?

    Allweneedislove:
    Good point, but I think it’s simple to remember no ground units, only air units.  It would work like sea zones except with no building ships allowed.  You wouldn’t need a bunch of different terrain types, just sea zones, land territories, and flight-only zones.

    Everyone, your points about the Himalayas are taken.  So we could have four different terrains.  Land, sea, air only, and impassable.  My points about the Sahara still stand though.



  • My guess as to why the sahara is impassible is to reflect the North African combat theater. In other words, it more or less forces a fight in North Africa before the rest of Africa can be fought over. It is important to control North Africa as a staging point to launch into Africa. It would be unrealistic for aircraft to fly from Europe, across the med, over North Africa and the Sahara, then conduct combat and return to Europe. If you control North Africa, particularly Egypt, then the Sahara becomes les of a factor.

    Another reason it might be impassable is that it wasn’t possible for aircraft to fly across the desert from a base in N.A. to conduct combat and return, which is what a player would do. (the hump through the Himalyas was a one way trip).

    Just my thoughts on it. I liked the change from the third edition.



  • sure, go ahead and play with it being passable by planes. doubt you’ll notice a difference.



  • @idk_iam_swiss:

    sure, go ahead and play with it being passable by planes. doubt you’ll notice a difference.

    There might be an odd occurence where it would benefit.



  • care to elucidate?



  • @idk_iam_swiss:

    care to elucidate?

    I said might. That means maybe. Would you like me to come up with some far fetched circumstance where it would be neccessary?



  • lol…no need BD. just saying the sahara wasnt crossed by planes for the same reason you pointed out. its way to farfetchd (yes thats a pokemon deal with it)

    side note BD looks like an emoticon doesnt it? just saw that now…ha



  • @idk_iam_swiss:

    lol…no need BD. just saying the sahara wasnt crossed by planes for the same reason you pointed out. its way to farfetchd (yes thats a pokemon deal with it)

    side note BD looks like an emoticon doesnt it? just saw that now…ha

    Pikachu.



  • @idk_iam_swiss:

    lol…no need BD. just saying the sahara wasnt crossed by planes for the same reason you pointed out. its way to farfetchd (yes thats a pokemon deal with it)

    side note BD looks like an emoticon doesnt it? just saw that now…ha

    Egypt was also never taken in the real war.  Here’s a scenario.  Italy takes Egypt, and the South African forces are left all alone and need air support, and the only way the UK can get aircraft there quick enough is to fly them across the Sahara.  I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t just let their planes sit around in the UK and do nothing.



  • Okay, how about this:  planes can fly across the Sahara, but it takes two movement points.  That would allow fighters to re-base, but not to fly missions back and forth.  Bombers could fly combat missions across it and get back to their starting base (barely), but they are, after all, supposed to be long range aircraft.


  • Customizer

    The pripet marsh will feature on the eastern front.  I assume this will be a completely off-limits area similar to desert, but have argued that planes be permitted to fly over it.  I also suggest that infantry be allowed to enter, but no other units.



  • @Flashman:

    The pripet marsh will feature on the eastern front.  I assume this will be a completely off-limits area similar to desert, but have argued that planes be permitted to fly over it.  I also suggest that infantry be allowed to enter, but no other units.

    Flashman, your the history buff, what is your take on flying over Sahara desert?



  • If the Marsh lets infantry into it, then it could be a massive torn in the side of Germany.

    Russia could put 2-3inf into it, and Germany would then be at risk of terriotys been taken behind their lines by infantry coming out of the Marsh.
    And to destory 2inf would take 5, a large cost. Unless they can fly air units into it, where they would just send in a bomber, 2 fighters and 2 taks along with 2 inf.


  • TripleA

    @democratic:

    If the Marsh lets infantry into it, then it could be a massive torn in the side of Germany.

    Russia could put 2-3inf into it, and Germany would then be at risk of terriotys been taken behind their lines by infantry coming out of the Marsh.
    And to destory 2inf would take 5, a large cost. Unless they can fly air units into it, where they would just send in a bomber, 2 fighters and 2 taks along with 2 inf.

    infantry in the marsh was just flashman’s wish. the game designer has already stated that the marsh will be an impassable territory.



  • Could be a good house rule if the game needs balencing.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 18
  • 2
  • 33
  • 3
  • 9
  • 3
  • 5
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games

28
Online

13.4k
Users

33.7k
Topics

1.3m
Posts