SeaMonkey

Terif, think about what you are saying, those other areas are open to invasion if you present an adequate force to accomplish the mission(historical). The geographic restrictions don't exist there. The enemy has every chance to interdict. Because the southern opening of the Red Sea is not represented and in addition the potential restriction of the Suez canal, its crazy to allow the game mechanics to magically deploy the Allied invasion force from the Atlantic into the Med, with no chance of enemy interaction in between. Its like 10000 kilometers! :eek: This is not Star Trek or the Final Countdown, it is a simulation of WW2. Besides, I've not heard you comment about the potential of the Persian Gulf invasion route(Kuwait). We shut down one, because it is geographically and historically bordering on the impossible, and open up the other which is historical, was accomplished, and "viola" you have your avenue for the Allies to rejoin the conflict in the Med/MidEast. :cool: Sorry Terif, I just don't understand your reasoning. You of all people should easily be able to grasp these strategic principles of warfare. Your position is illogical! Just call me Mr. Spock.

That's a good point JJ, accurate of course. Surely a bigger map would end a lot of the debate, but then the location triggers from the scripts would have to be changed. Probably a bigger map would be the best solution, but then the balancing act would have to reconvene and it is so tricky and we are so close. Believe me, I understand the whys and wheretos to not change. Terif and others know the complications of achieving this fine SC2 balance we are so close to. Its tough to self examine and take a step back when you are so close to success. This game totally rocks and it has such legs, strong, sound legs, it can survive and move ahead. The head to head dynamics of competition are unparalleled in this game, evidence this discussion, this forum's history. Did someone say the enthusiasm was waning? Even Stalin's Organist keeps hanging around.

Thankfully HC has one. ( a military mind)

Have any of y'all examined the southern opening of the Red Sea around the Djibouti area? Do any of you doubt that once the Suez and Egypt have fallen under Axis control they would dally around and not project a force to that choke point? Do any of you remember how effective German Eboats are in shallow confined waters with known mined areas to funnel enemy naval intrusions? Do you really think that it would be anymore difficult for the Axis to cut off this approach then it was for the UK to do the same in the Med at Gibraltar? How far is Djibouti from the Suez canal? I thought we had some military minds in this forum, but perhaps its just about gameplaying. My mistake.

Sounds good, I'm with Blashy, but I still want the Persian Gulf possibility. What about it Terif, with the added invasion arena, Iraq/Iran?

Hubert, how about opening up the Persian Gulf for a possible invasion route?

Before you guys vote, do a little research into the topography that exists in the Red Sea, especially the navigable waters and the underwater strata. Examine the geography of the land masses, observe the choke points and remember what the 300 Spartans did. I'm OK with a transit from the Atlantic to the Red Sea and the adjacent land areas, but not to the Med., essentially bypassing the Suez. That completely undermines the importance that the Suez occupied in WW2 and now. Look at the Persian Gulf, why are the Straits of Hormuz so important?

Really, the last thing I wanted to accomplish here was the diminishing of strategic possibilities. I want the game as full of variables without undue burden on players or a clunky interface, sans micromanagement. That is why I would like to see the Persian Gulf open to an invasion route, we have the convoy. I still believe the Allies should be able to mount a raid into the Red Sea/Suez area, especially if the Axis are neglectful of garrisoning forces. It shouldn't be "large scale" and by no means get an automatic deployment into the Med(past the Suez). If the Axis are diligent with their deployments, as Blashy has suggested, then the Red Sea approach should be potentially blocked. These modifications would represent the most realistic considerations of what could be achieved during this era. It serves the purpose of further extending the Axis resources if the player chooses and allows for varied Allied operational choices, all within the context of real life.

I understand the historical scenario, but that is not what this discussion is about. Its about a "what if" the Axis(largely the Germans) took control of the Suez Canal, Egypt, and ultimately the spread of their influence throughout the Middle East and further south towards the Horn. Its about the geographical limitations of a full scale offensive the size of DDay and the SC2 game mechanics of allowing it and supporting it. I really wouldn't have a problem with it if it was more in line with the questionable circumstances of an Axis invasion of the USA. But because of the Loop mechanics the invasion force does not have to travel through possible interdicting enemy forces. The whole area from the Atlantic loop arrows to the Med. is a free ride for the Allied invasion force. Think about how far that is and the extent of the historical German submarine activities through this free ride zone. And on top of all of that, the invasion force arrives in complete surprise through the restricted waters of the Red Sea for an assault on Egypt, frontally and on the flank. Sorry, I have a pretty vivid imagination, but this is a bit of a stretch.

SO, what do you mean irrelevant? That is enemy controlled area, along with Ertrea and after the French fall, Somali also. The proximity of naval units is what is irrelevant. Eyes...SO....Eyes, that report on the enemy, in this case Allied, movements. No chance for a surprise invasion. Crap! Do you have any idea how the subterranean structural formations of the Red Sea limit navigation, very dangerous for large naval vessels. The southern entrance is very narrow, easily mined. Simply (I like Blashy's philosophy) it is next to impossible for a sneak attack especially by a large force. My position is that it could be possible to put a small force ashore for a land excursion from Somali. It wouldn't be a surprise. Hubert, one SC naval unit, simulating a task force, could most likely block the Red Sea, in conjuction with mines. If SC naval units are multiple vessels, then at a minimum, 2 units occupying the Red Sea loop arrows should shut it down. No possible deployment to the Med is a start. Blashy, nevermind about the Suez, you've got to traverse the Red Sea to get there first. Examine the geography of this area. Put an AF or Bomber or both in the Cairo area, nothing is going to come up the Red Sea without being destroyed. I'm all for compromises, but large scale military operations in this area after the Allies have been vanquished seems awfully farfetched.

OK guys, I'm sorry, the ability to transport a bunch of troops and ships around the Cape and attack Cairo/Suez area is just ludicrous. Notice I didn't say impossible, but in such strength as Terif did, probably close to it. First of all Ertrea(Italian owned), French Somali, and Ethiopia(Italian) all sit at the entrance of the Red Sea. Can't imagine an invasion force passing by unnoticed. Secondly, any type of patrol vessel, not to mention civilian aircraft, could easily monitor the approaches to Cairo and the Suez. Thirdly, how in the hell does a force get through an enemy naval taskforce stationed on the Red Sea loop arrows and into the Med. Pure Crap! I propose the Atlantic Loop arrows be broken into three sets. One set, one arrow only, for an amphib unit to land one land unit into the Cairo area after the Allies have lost Egypt. This simulates a possible landing at the Horn and the traversing to the Cairo area by land route. The Red Sea should be blocked with any Naval TF, excepting transport or amphibs, to enemy movement when stationed on the loop arrows. Next set, 4 arrows for the movement of Allies into the Egyptian theater as it is now, through the Red Sea when it remains in Allied control. Last set, ? arrows for the loop to the Persian Gulf for subsequent landings in Basra, Kuwait, and the Saudi Arabian area. This is another option for the Allies to pursue a strategy into the MidEast theater.

ok, so its not my best idea!

Well what do you guys think? Isn't it logical that if you choose to upgrade a unit that it should be elligible while it is being built. Would save a turn of deployment, could work some different strategies with the tech choices/investments and thrifty use of MPPs. To difficult to implement HC?

Its an abstraction at best A234, no connection to reality, just mechanics representation. Actually, corps size units should be the only ones doing amphibious operations, perhaps the Allies could do some Armies and Tanks in 44 at the earliest. I would also include a limiting of mobility tech level one(maybe IW=1 also) to represent the training and necessary investment in landing craft to conduct proper assaults on enemy beaches.

That's right Liam, a tough game to master, its beautiful. The quality vs quantity thing is the quintessential question, always debateable. As far as the loop. Here's the thing, the Red Sea would have to be traversed by the Allies, a natural bottleneck. Easily mined and patroled especially with subs. The land route from the Horn? Well there's no way the Axis could be surprised by a large invasion and naval force. Sounds pretty gamey in my book.

Heck do I ever get it! I understand Liam, and long have I been an advocate of more random spotting in the SC naval game. This is especially true in open waters without the benefit of air units. This is where the carrier airgroups should be effective, in the search and attack missions. Unfortunately until HC comes up with a more random spotting mechanism and the ability for naval units to pass through enemy occupied tiles undetected, we have what we have.

Hey Stu, welcome. We have examined this, "Your found, Your drowned" syndrome. Wholeheartedly agree, there needs to be some avenue of escape for subs.

Liam, I'm wondering, are you playing simultaneous or sequential turns? I believe the default is sequential. If sequential then I believe that time has past since the last turn and puts any previous sightings in doubt, ie. they need to be reconfirmed.

Really enjoyed this discussion. I can attest that Blashy makes a really competitive mod and I like his perspective, historically accurate. That is the difference here, perspective. Blashy's is a more limited scope with an operational feel, strategically oriented. On the other hand is JJ's grand strategic vision, more biased to the diplomatic mode and the cultural differences of the players. Isn't it great that SC2 can accomplish both. Looking forward to further offerings from these two gifted individuals.

1/2 an hour is plenty of time for a PBEM turn.

Well it is so good to see some of the "big name" players touting SC2 balance, I'm in complete agreement. Many times I have seen players surrender in a condition that is easily salvageable, one of the reasons I almost never concede. To me SC2 presents many occasions throughout gameplay to alter the situation, significantly, ie. there is much ebb and flow, much opportunity. A lot of players feel they must create something critical in the early stages when in fact I believe it is better to avoid that situation and wait. Like a cagy cat, patient, awaiting the prey to assume a vulnerable position, perhaps helping to lead them down that path. This AAR is a perfect example. Just because it was Terif that sprang the trap doesn't mean that other less capable SC2 players can't receive the same benefits. It is "SO" possible in SC2 that anyone can do it. And just because you may become a hapless victim does not mean that you have lost...not by a longshot, "what goes around, comes around". As far as the tech levels, especially for the ground units, I would like to see IW3, AT3, and HT5 become a more drawnout affair. Maybe reducing the % chance they happen in the early years with an increasing % as time moves on. Ideally, the max levels for most of the techs shouldn't be realized until 44 or 45, predominantly. Still the unpredictability of war needs to be viable in SC2 so that in perhaps a very very small % those upper level tech values could be attained. My feeling is that as all tech levels rise there could be a higher % variable that would allow the attainment earlier, due to byproducts(knowledge, ideas, discoveries) of researching. In this manner players would be rewarded for a more diversified tech investment strategy.

Blashy, but once we upgrade to 1.05 any games that are going in 1.04 will not be compatible, excepting your mod, ....right? If so PM(bradtap@aol.com) me your mod update, I only have the old version(1.03). What side do you want?

And a fine mod it is Blashy, as I've stated before. Be more than willing to give you a go at it again, once you have incorporated 1.05. What I've been thinking is the possession of certain critical locations over a period of time should then be adjusted with combat loss comparison to arrive at the final victory in a point type evaluation. Places like you have enumerated, plus others, like the Suez, Gibraltar, Paris, Tehran, Malta, Antwerp, etc. All worth a defined number of victory points per turn, the game engine could keep the running tally. That point total then adjusted by the loss of combat units, some having a higher point worth than others, like a carrier is worth more than a sub, proportional to their MPP cost. Resource considerations? Others, like tile control?

UK tries this stuff against a decent SC player and you'll be opened up to Sealion. I won't mention the readiness hit to USA that HR referred to. IMO Bad plan!

Since IMO(with 1.05 looming) we are rapidly approaching parity in H to H games, I'm wondering do we need to consider a new set of victory conditions. Again, my opinion is when parity arrives, given two players of equal ability, in the end the Allies will win. Should we consider a date, a high water mark, or certain geographical locations as the deciding factors. Maybe all three and more. I believe it would behoove this game to have the combat losses enter into the equation also. Now WaW.AWD and MWiF are considering this approach, well not considering, they actually accomplish the fact of defining a specific set of victory conditions. Should we pass the platter and get some ideas, or just leave it as is....maybe..to early, eh?