28) this rule can cause problems worse than the problem it tries to solve. 1° example. In a Air combat fleet (with 3 CVs and 3 DD) 1 CV becomes damaged. To allow docking in an empty port you have to escort it with at least 4 ships. In short, you have to give up the operation. <absurd! Or, 2° example: after a port attack the same fleet as before remains with only 3 surviving ships (3CV); because it has not the legal number to sail they have to wait to be all sunk...and so on. as written this is not an acceptable rule. The 2nd part of the rule could be OK, B7 a. I- @% S! H% K
1 z9 j3 y, V' m' L' g5 a鬼佬主要是在不满28条 我觉得他没理解这规定的含义。。。
7 s4 x* T3 t8 c) C m# Y, y
% L3 a+ u5 H) E+ ]0 i4 F译:这条规定可能导致的问题比它解决的问题还严重,例如一个空战舰队(3CV3DD)一艘CV受创,为了让她入港需要3艘DD跟随,简而言之,你不得不抛弃护航<荒谬 例2 上诉同一舰队在一次对港袭击后只剩下三艘CV,因为没有达到规定的数量,他们只能原地等死。。。因此这条房规不能接受,不过第二部分说不定还ok. |