Question about supply

[Aryaman]

If a HQ is located close to a city that is cut off, the HQ is still in supply? Can still provide supply to nearby units?

[Bill101]

Hi

The HQ will still get some supply from that city, but it will be based on that city's supply value once it's cut off.

This is typically 5, which if he is in the city, will give him a supply value of 8.

This value will reduce the further he is from the city, so keep him close to it, but not too close if the city itself is in the front line.

Being low on supply will reduce his ability to reinforce and resupply his units, and this will be further penalized if he is low on strength.

[SeaMonkey]

Use the "S" key to see the map supply strength visualization of each tile, you can figure it out from there.

[Aryaman]

I think that is rather unrealistic, any unit that filters through the enemy front andreaches the safety of a city not only receive supply (that in WW1 would be a great deal of ammo) but also replacements. In a game I am playing my opponent is overwhelming my Ottomans just by throwsing all around those raiding units, it looks very unlike WW1.

I would like to consider if possible for a patch that cut off cities doesn´t provide supply, or at least the supply is so low as to make impossible replacements.

[Bill101]

I think that is rather unrealistic, any unit that filters through the enemy front andreaches the safety of a city not only receive supply (that in WW1 would be a great deal of ammo) but also replacements. In a game I am playing my opponent is overwhelming my Ottomans just by throwsing all around those raiding units, it looks very unlike WW1.

I would like to consider if possible for a patch that cut off cities doesn´t provide supply, or at least the supply is so low as to make impossible replacements.

Hi Aryaman

With the scorched earth settings, any unit taking a city, and relying on that city as its sole source of supply will be severely restricted in the reinforcements it can receive for quite some time.

I trust that the scorched earth settings are in place in this game, so that the resource's strength (and therefore supply values) are being reset to zero when they change hands?

Also, probing enemy units cannot normally move very fast if they are low on supply, so it shouldn't really be too easy for them to do this unless they are moving with a HQ in close support.

Other than that, resources that are cut off from a friendly Major's capital, Industrial Center or Primary Supply Center (the latter in Breakthrough only) will provide a reduced level of supply.

This supply will be further reduced if you have 4 units adjacent to any enemy held cities or towns.

Damaging enemy HQs also helps, as once damaged they provide less supply, and if you beat them severely, they can take several turns before they can reinforce to full strength.

I hope this helps work out a plan to deal with the invaders. In the long run his probes should really be more of a waste of your opponent's troops, unless he manages to take a crucial location in the process, such as a city or Gallipoli.

[Aryaman]

We are playing with scorched earth settings, but as my opponent has many more units than I do he is able to sneak units through the front line and I don´t have enough units to keep the front and patrol/garrison the rear areas. Maybe a good idea would be to have some sort of militia landsturm unit in any city acting as garrison when the city is approached by the enemy, to avoid those sneaky tactics.

[Bill101]

Please can you let me know exactly where the Entente are advancing?

Only the terrain and limited number of roads in Turkey normally restricts the invaders to a few routes, and it will help to gain a better appreciation of the situation.

You can always post a screenshot, or email a saved turn (with your password) to me at bill.runacre@furysoftware.com. I'll be happy to take a look.

Thanks!

[Aryaman]

We are already very advanced in the game and Turkey is already going down quickly, but I will give you an example, he sends one garrison unit around Trebizond in the Black Sea coast, that unit goes along the coast and I send another garrison unit to chase it down,easily done as it moves slowly, but then I can´t destroy it, even at minimum morale and supply my garrison still can´t make any damgae on it, and I can´t spare a single corps from the front line to that purposse. The enemy unit keeps moving, joined by another, and another one, and they always find an empty city to take and resupply. I can´t garrison them all in time.

In general, my opponent send raiding units whenever he see any chance. In Europe the Austrians and Germans usually had units to spare and they are destroyed quickly, but in Turkey that is not the case. Maybe a more experie3nced player could deal with this to his advantage, but to me it is killing my Turks.

[Bill101]

How are these units getting there, is he landing them via amphibious transports?

If so, unless the settings have been changed, this should be costing him a fortune.

If it's another way then I'd really appreciate seeing the turn.

[xwormwood]

In general, my opponent send raiding units whenever he see any chance. In Europe the Austrians and Germans usually had units to spare and they are destroyed quickly, but in Turkey that is not the case. Maybe a more experie3nced player could deal with this to his advantage, but to me it is killing my Turks.

If they come via amphib assault, you should use your fleet to protect your coast lines. At least your towns and cities. Try to patrol the sea, you might even get the chance to attack the amphib at sea.

As Bill already wrote, those amphib attacks are expensive. But if you decide to attack a unit, make sure to bring one of your HQs, and maybe a second or third land unit,too. You even could use the mentioned german or AH units do defend you turkish coast lines.

[steel32]

Flanks need protected or at least ZOC in control enough to avoid units getting into the rear. My personal opinion is this is Battlefront's best effort in showing reality. What you are describing is what exactly did in the Ottoman empire, not in Turkey proper though but through the Middle East.

General Rules for Succesful Turkey defense

1. All ports that Turkey are in control of must have a defending unit in it to avoid a hopping strategy which in the real war the British attempted at Gallipoli.

2. All rear cities where flanks are open and ZOC not in control a defending unit must be in position.

3. All Morale cities must also be not left open for capture. Takes just once to get the affect.

4. Serbia must be conquered (best ASAP) to a. bring in Bulgaria as these troops are needed and b. allow the rail line to run all the way down to the middle east and bring extra units that will be needed in the future. I have never seen Turkey hold out on their own unless the British/Russians completely ignore Turkey.

5. Turkey is held by a thin line and outnumbered because of their massive empire and this is how it was in reality. Good thing to attempt is to suck the Entente powers past your initial lines as long as you hold the rear cities, then cut them off themselves.

On supply getting thru lines to cities also believe well represented in this game as lines if not filled with armies in a completely non-interrupted chain will have porous flanks allowing minimal supplies and men to get through. Somewhat also makes sense that over time if a city is not re-conquered that the surrounding armies looking to re-take the rear would become more porous over time. Just adding my thoughts on this as I know there is others.

[Aryaman]

If they come via amphib assault, you should use your fleet to protect your coast lines. At least your towns and cities. Try to patrol the sea, you might even get the chance to attack the amphib at sea.

As Bill already wrote, those amphib attacks are expensive. But if you decide to attack a unit, make sure to bring one of your HQs, and maybe a second or third land unit,too. You even could use the mentioned german or AH units do defend you turkish coast lines.

That was another question, in the game my opponent blocked my advance in Serbia so that I couldn´t link with the Turks, that was a big strategic failure on my part. Probably that is why my opponent so outnumbered my Turks in the East so that he could filter units anywhere.

Also patroling the Black Sea coasts was difficult as the Russianfleet achieved superirity there, he selected the Black Sea for the battleships he was getting along the game.

In all probably my poor managament was probably the main cause that allowed my oppponent to exploit that tactic.

[Ataman]

In my pbem game opponent took control of Basra(25 NM value) and just in previous turn Sedd el Bahr( cost 12 NM). It is jan 1916 and all the other towns including Erzurum and Eleşkirt under Turkish control. Historically I think those two eastern towns were more devastating for Turkish morale in WW1 and it is true in game turns regarding NM value for those towns. ex: Armenian milice and russian advance were a real problem. But Turkish NM is only 58% now.

It seems English divisions near Hedjaz and arab partizans will definitely be successful and control Damascus. So it will be more NM loss.

I think for advancing years it would be best and historical for Turkey not care about Damascus and Basra and only take NM loss when core provinces under enemy control. But again for scenario balance I'm not sure.

[xwormwood]

That was another question, in the game my opponent blocked my advance in Serbia so that I couldn´t link with the Turks, that was a big strategic failure on my part. Probably that is why my opponent so outnumbered my Turks in the East so that he could filter units anywhere.

Also patroling the Black Sea coasts was difficult as the Russianfleet achieved superirity there, he selected the Black Sea for the battleships he was getting along the game.

In all probably my poor managament was probably the main cause that allowed my oppponent to exploit that tactic.

What you need is the Bulgarian war entry.

For this you should conquer Belgrad, the Serbian capital.

And if you feel lucky, invest a diplo chit too.

With Bulgaria in the war you will be able to send troops to Turkey, Germans, AH and Bulgarians.

[Bill101]

I think for advancing years it would be best and historical for Turkey not care about Damascus and Basra and only take NM loss when core provinces under enemy control. But again for scenario balance I'm not sure.

Hi Ataman

What we've tried to represent with the Ottoman National Morale is the fragility of an overextended Empire.

Basra's loss is factored in to the Ottoman's starting National Morale value, so that it's loss isn't a true negative on this. Though on the odd occasion that the British don't take it (and I have seen this in multiplayer) this becomes a bonus for the Ottomans.

Places like Jerusalem and Damascus are important because if they, and others like Medina and Baghdad, are lost, then this means that the Ottomans have effectively lost their empire. As they voluntarily entered the war, the effect of this would be to pretty much bring down the regime, as happened in 1918 when Damascus was taken following the battle of Megiddo.

The Caucasus are certainly important too, and continuing Russian occupation of places like Erzurum will have more of an effect on Ottoman morale than the one off losses for losing places like Damascus.

I just thought I'd explain the reasoning behind the Ottoman National Morale set up, and I hope that makes sense.

Bill

[Aryaman]

As they voluntarily entered the war, the effect of this would be to pretty much bring down the regime, as happened in 1918 when Damascus was taken following the battle of Megiddo.

Bill

That is not correct, what forced the Ottoman government to ask for the armistice of Moudros was the collapse of the Bulgarian army in the Salonnika front. When that happened there was no Ottoman force left to stop the advance of the British on Constantinople, so Enver Pasha fled to Berlin and the government asked for an armistice.

[Ancient Demon]

...and others like Medina and Baghdad, are lost,

By the way, how are the Arabs ever supposed to take Medina if defended by a corps?

[Aryaman]

Well, historically they didn´t take the city.

Medina was held by the Hejaz Expeditionary Force, commanded by Fahreddin Pascha and composed by

1st Camel Regiment (1 nci Hecinsüvar Alayı)

1st Volunteer Arab Cavalry Regiment (1 nci Akıncı Alayı)

3 Field artillery batteries

2 Signal companies

Medical and logistical support elements

This force only surrendered in January 1919, 2 months after the war had ended!

[Bill101]

That is not correct, what forced the Ottoman government to ask for the armistice of Moudros was the collapse of the Bulgarian army in the Salonnika front. When that happened there was no Ottoman force left to stop the advance of the British on Constantinople, so Enver Pasha fled to Berlin and the government asked for an armistice.

That is certainly true, and is the key single event triggering their withdrawal from the war, but what I was thinking was that the Ottoman collapse was ultimately the culmination of various factors.

David Stevenson lists three in his book Backs to the Wall: The collapse of the Palestinian front; The Bolshevik rejection of the terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and resumption of hostilities against them; and of course the Bulgarian surrender.

One big problem with the Bulgarian surrender was that the Ottomans had sent their best units into Persia and the Caucasus, rather than holding them back to help defend their capital. With a different strategy, and if their Empire had still been largely intact, the Bulgarian surrender may not have triggered their withdrawal from the war, at least not as soon or with such harsh terms from the Entente.

So effectively what we're trying to show with the National Morale objectives is a way to strike blows at the regime in Constantinople. None of them on their own will necessarily be decisive, but put enough of them together and the Empire will fall.