navy garrisons.

[delems]

Mechelen and Leuven both have docks... but neither have a navy garrison.

[BMBM]

Not supposed to have any.

[jwrona]

1 hour ago, BMBM said:

Not supposed to have any.

except that paal, vireaux, other river towns do? Whats the separation?

[goreblimey]

I would think a dock itself makes it self evident the town should have Naval garrison. Otherwise remove the dock. 

Or perhaps the Naval garrison is there , it’s just in the proper place, as Apposed to the river that is seemingly lost.

[BMBM]

I don’t recall if it’s intentional or not tbh, but the Dyle is/was mostly a stream and in its northern part a narrow canal with a series of locks fit only for small barges. No marine detachment would ever deploy on it.

The Dyle is a terrain feature and an obstruction to land traffic, not really a militarily navigable body of water.

[delems]

Ok, so it was more cosmetic then?

[BMBM]

Correctamundo (IMV).

[jwilly]

The reason for adding the Dyle to the terrain, or anyway why I proposed it some years ago, was that historically it was the geographic feature behind which the Belgian Army intended to defend if the Albert Canal defensive line was breached.

The Albert Canal Plan of course was anchored by Fort Eben Emael, which guarded the bridges and bridgeable stretch of the Meuse River below the fort. As events unfolded, the Belgian Army had to fall back to the Dyle Plan much sooner than they had anticipated.

The historical Dyle River along almost all of its length ran along the western edge of its rather wide valley, with a respectable ridge along the western side and as much as a km or two of marsh and very soft ground along the east side, giving way to mixed scrub as the ground very gradually rose.

As BMBM noted, the Dyle River was not navigable, even in a narrow river barge sense. 

Of course, motor gunboats don't belong on any of the game rivers, let alone the marshy Dyle. Much too wide to fit the locks, much too high to fit under the bridges. 

[TR6AL]

The docks where added more for game play reasons than actual RL river representation. They are more of a placeholder to see if they are needed or accepted . 

 

[drkmouse]

one word ( ok 2 ) fishing boats 

[hillstorm]

1 hour ago, drkmouse said:

one word ( ok 2 ) fishing boats 

We need troops in kayaks 

[jwilly]

New "vehicle" proposal...used by all armies, single generic model acceptable:

Truck-with-assault-boat spawns, and drives to an allowed launching location. The truck Deploying causes the assault boat to appear in the river at the bank, with three NPC infantrymen kneeling along each side, "armed" with a paddle in the water. The truck disappears. The player that spawned the truck-with-assault-boat now controls the assault boat. 

While the assault boat is not moving and is in contact with the riverbank, up to ten player-infantrymen can Jump from the riverbank to the boat. Upon entering the boat, they take a kneeling position, with no weapon selected.

At any time, the player controlling the assault boat can "drive" it in the river. While in contact with a riverbank and not moving, infantry can Jump to the riverbank.

Upon the last (live) player-infantryman leaving the boat, the boat disappears, including the NPC rowers.

Player-infantrymen in the boat are injurable as normally. NPC rowers are not injurable and non-collidable. The boat itself can be damaged. At a relatively low damage threshold, the boat sinks, and the player-infantrymen aboard are drowned.

(Swimming is removed as an infantry action.)

[delems]

Yes, the 251/7 carried boats on side lockers I believe.

Should be easy to model as have 251/1 already.

[jwilly]

Do it with trucks, not APCs.

The British APC, when eventually introduced, will be too small to carry inflatible assault boats. The French won't have an APC, of course, but their supply carrier nonetheless will be too small to carry such boats. But, all sides have trucks.

[Kilemall]

21 hours ago, jwilly said:

The reason for adding the Dyle to the terrain, or anyway why I proposed it some years ago, was that historically it was the geographic feature behind which the Belgian Army intended to defend if the Albert Canal defensive line was breached.

The Albert Canal Plan of course was anchored by Fort Eben Emael, which guarded the bridges and bridgeable stretch of the Meuse River below the fort. As events unfolded, the Belgian Army had to fall back to the Dyle Plan much sooner than they had anticipated.

The historical Dyle River along almost all of its length ran along the western edge of its rather wide valley, with a respectable ridge along the western side and as much as a km or two of marsh and very soft ground along the east side, giving way to mixed scrub as the ground very gradually rose.

As BMBM noted, the Dyle River was not navigable, even in a narrow river barge sense. 

Of course, motor gunboats don't belong on any of the game rivers, let alone the marshy Dyle. Much too wide to fit the locks, much too high to fit under the bridges. 

The French referred to the defensive plan they used as the Dyle-Breda plan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_war_planning_1920–1940