Slow boat to Alexandria

[Canuck_para]

I find Britain loses too much time transporting units to North Africa and back. Taking 4 or 5 turns (which means a couple months) seems too long a time. Britain has poor power projection in the Med with regards to ground units. I don't know if the problem could be fixed by making Suez/Alexandria a home city for the UK which allows them to build there and operate units more quickly.

[pzgndr]

Good idea. This would solve some problems and abstractly reflect unit transport around South Africa. Of course it's only one-way and requires Britain to fight its way out of Egypt, but that's an acceptable compromise compared with the current game limitations.

[Thucydides]

Absolutely agree. Using Alex as a 'home' city would be a huge advantage in trying to make some sense of the N.Africa campaign - and reflect the access which Allied forces had via Suez. The defence of Egypt depended very largely on troops from Australia, NZ, India & S.Africa - none of whom had to be shipped-in across the Med.

[Dale H]

Also need to be able to get units below North African Med coast cities (eg. Tobruk) in order to attack them. These cities are too hard to capture without the ability to invest them. I suppose it can be done but not worth the effort. I realize the Quattara Depression (sp?) is an issue but the navigable area in North Afrika should have been more than 2 hexes wide, imltho. Would love to use Rommel to try to duplicate the Afrika Korps campaigns but then I agree having Alex be an alternate source of units for the Brits would make sense because historically it was the staging center for gathering troops for the North African theatre from the entire Empire using the Suez canal to funnel them there. Still a great game, regardless.

Dale

[Mozzer]

I've got to add my voice to this particular chorus of approval. I feel that at the moment the North African aspect of the war really does'nt work. The map obviously does not go far enough south and so turns the cut and thrust of desert warfare into an unrealistic trench war. The way the map is in North Africa you simply cannot concentrate forces in a realistic way. I was looking at the High Command map last night and whatever you say about the AI and the interface you have got to admire the map which stretches from the North cape of Norway from the north deep into the desert in the south and from the USA (albeit abstractly represented- you cannot invade it) in the west to Kuwait and beyond the Urals in the East. I realise that this has been discussed before and there are memory restrictions but North Africa is where the map really lets us down. Perhaps being British I add more emphasis to this area than it warrants but at the moment, nothing happens in the middle east in the grand campaign. I really agree that Alexandria should count as a deployment centre for the British. It is not perfect but it would help recreate the importance of the middle east to the British strategy. The idea that all British troops would be dashed through the Med is unrealistic when the safer, but longer Cape route was available. Clash of Steel had an option whereby you could transfer troops round the cape to the Middle east. Previous posters are right to emphasise the arrival of Commonwealth troops from India, Australia, New Zealand, etc, which would not have gone through the Med. Furthermore, I feel that you should have to capture Alexandria to completely defeat the UK. If the UK had fallen, the plans were ready to carry on the fight from the middle east using troops from the Commonwealth.

[USGrant]

In the same vein, I think all of the naval movement allowances are too low. Unfortunately, with the constricted Atlantic fixing this would cause other problems. While the naval aspects of this game are fun, they are not very realistic. In a future game I would suggest sea zones instead of hexes in the ocean. It would be a case of the addition of an abstraction increasing realism.

[J Wagner]

Just a vote of support for additional hexes on the North Africa front....if you take a look at the Third Reich game board, you'll see what a difference a few extra hexes can make in your North African campaign...

[benkarl]

I know map size is supposed to be a limitation. Why not take a row or two of hexes off the top of the map and put it on the bottom? The only place I can think of taht this would cause any real problems is Finland and one row off of there wouldn't hurt as much as it would help N. Africa, IMO.

[Briggs]

Actualy, with N. Africa, I find it to be very helpful in the war. I use the Italians to build up a lot of airfleets, and take them to Africa with some German tanks and an HQ. I roll over Alexandria, then continue East and take Iraq, then strike Russian from the south, and take her oil fields.

[Panzer39]

If a row was taken off the top and put on the bottom it would almost guarantee the impossibility of a German Navy break out into the North Atlantic. What is needed is more rows on top and bottom. As of now it is nearly impossible to get the German Navy to ports in France. One has to have air superiority and attempt a Channel Dash. In reality most of the German ships broke out by going north or south of Iceland (which would also make another nice addition). It would be nice to see more map hexes to the North as well as to the South in the next version of SC

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Thucydides:

Absolutely agree. Using Alex as a 'home' city would be a huge advantage in trying to make some sense of the N.Africa campaign - and reflect the access which Allied forces had via Suez. The defence of Egypt depended very largely on troops from Australia, NZ, India & S.Africa - none of whom had to be shipped-in across the Med.

Disagree. Somewhat.

If you allow Britain to muster troops in Alexandria, they will (or should) quickly over-run the Med land areas.

True, there should be some mechanism to allow Commonwealth troops from India, NZ, Australia, South Africa, BUT -- it could only be done IF there was some limitation applied.

Previous I had suggested a random, once a year reinforcement (or, may not arrive at all) of one corps -- say from '41 to '44. This could take the form of a minor (... no HQ assistance) army that cannot be rebuilt and that would have less offensive capabilities.

Also, adding Suez City with around the Horn, time-bound movement would be something to consider in order to allow Britain some (much delayed) relief.

Otherwise, you have unfairly un-balanced the power in the Med and given Britain too much potential power. Perhaps those in favor are sitting and smoking a corn-cob pipe in the Allied commander's chair?

[benkarl]

Ok. Well, if its a question of the total number of hexes, are there enough hexes on the west side of the map that taking two rows there would let us add one to the bottom? That would solve two complaints. It would make the african campaigns more feasable. If we redesign America and Canada as we would have to, we could make them two hexes wide like north Africa is now. That would help appease those who say its too easy to invade the US/Canada by creating the same problem people have going after Alexandria right now.

[J Wagner]

I don't understand the need to "rob peter to pay paul". There should be no difficulty in changing the scale by a small measure so that the extra north south hexes could be added without sacrificing any other territory. If SCII simply followed the scale of the 3R map, it would be a fine addition.

[Norse]

I like this idea

How many units would the British be able to build near Alexandria on one turn? I think 1 per turn should be the limit, otherwise things can get out of hand, however that might be very interesting...heh heh

I vote in favor

~Norse~

[pzgndr]

Heck, how many units can Britain build in a single turn anyway during 40-42? And if they're building away down in Egypt for some grand enterprise, then they're NOT building what they need somewhere else.

I just don't see a major play balance concern if Britain is able to build units in Alexandria. I do see a problem with not being able to transport units from Britain to Egypt except through the teeth of the Italian navy. It's not so much whether you want to but can you, and if you can't then what's wrong with the simulation?

A short aside. The scenarios *should* accurately represent the historical situations (units, research, etc.) and this is fairly well done. The game on normal (historical) settings *should* allow you to recreate history if you follow the same path, but this area still needs some tweaking. Try going from 40 to 41 and getting the same British situation in Egypt. How do you get Wavell and 2 corps down to Egypt and take Tobruk?? It's stuff like this that demonstrates how well a game plays. If it doesn't play *correctly*, then something needs adjustment. Once all the baseline stuff works well, THEN you can deviate from history and feel good about the outcome of what-if strategies.

[J Wagner]

Bill, I agree with you whole heartedly but I have to ask you if you still feel that the current turn length system is sufficient in regards to the Mediterrainian campaign. I feel the present system does not allow you the time to meet historical timeframes, especially in this theater.

[pzgndr]

In general, I like the turn sequence in the game. 13 or 14 player turns per year is good and the variable turn length creates an interesting effect. If we really want 24 half-month or 26 bi-weekly turns with regional weather effects, that would be a major overhaul to the game and we won't see it in this version. I'm really curious to see what may happen if we could simply tweak the current version to double production in winter and halve it during summer, thus normalizing production on a per month basis and providing some seasonal differences between the turns. (Sorry, I digress. )

You can't get a perfect simulation at the turn level, at any scale. You need to look at results over time, like season-to-season or year-to-year in SC. We're seeing fairly decent results for the most part except for some things like the sub war and North Africa campaigns. These will improve over time as Hubert fine-tunes things based on our comments. This particular debate will hopefully produce some tweaking to improve the North Africa situation for the Brits, by either allowing builds in Egypt or allowing some sort of special transfers from Britain.

[Norse]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

Heck, how many units can Britain build in a single turn anyway during 40-42? And if they're building away down in Egypt for some grand enterprise, then they're NOT building what they need somewhere else.

Bill, you haveto open your mind. If you give the British player the opertunity to build 8 units a turn in Egypt, then a British player WILL build 8 units in Egypt - something which can get really bad sideeffects. As said, open your mind, people here are pushing this game to it's limit. If you as the British player wouldn't be able to do this thing, I betcha there are other's here that would figure out how... Don't say it is impossible, if you add it to the game, then it is possible, and it will be done.

My point still stands, reinforcing Egypt wasn't an impulse kind of thing, it took time, they hadto sail around South-Africa up the suez etc. Letting Britain build too many units in Egypt at once, CAN have unforseen sideeffects...

1 unit in the city each turn would be nice, correct me if Im wrong, but I think that is what we would see anyway. with the current supply rules, right?

Anyway, I still got my vote on Alexandria as a homecity no matter It's an good idea.

I just don't see a major play balance concern if Britain is able to build units in Alexandria. I do see a problem with not being able to transport units from Britain to Egypt except through the teeth of the Italian navy. It's not so much whether you want to but can you, and if you can't then what's wrong with the simulation?

A short aside. The scenarios *should* accurately represent the historical situations (units, research, etc.) and this is fairly well done. The game on normal (historical) settings *should* allow you to recreate history if you follow the same path, but this area still needs some tweaking. Try going from 40 to 41 and getting the same British situation in Egypt. How do you get Wavell and 2 corps down to Egypt and take Tobruk?? It's stuff like this that demonstrates how well a game plays. If it doesn't play *correctly*, then something needs adjustment. Once all the baseline stuff works well, THEN you can deviate from history and feel good about the outcome of what-if strategies.

[Norse]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

How do you get Wavell and 2 corps down to Egypt and take Tobruk??

You send Wavell and 2 corps down to Egypt and take Tobruk. :cool:

[pzgndr]

OK, fine, now I'm not open-minded.

Let's see, what are the abstractions we deal with in this game? Building battleships in a single turn. Reinforcing units in Egypt overnight, which assumes replacements make it there OK despite the long trip. Operational movement of air units from Britain to Egypt in a single turn. Etc. And units "magically" appearing in Alexandria would somehow upset this fine balance? Right.

The point here is how to recreate the historical ability of Britain to reinforce Egypt WITHOUT transporting units through the Med, since the Italian Navy tends to rip up transports. There are a few options on the table (besides what I suggest) and hopefully Hubert will consider something.

[Sol Invictus]

Possibly allowing the operational deployment of land units from England to Egypt might somewhat solve the problem, that and adding a row of hexes in the desert. As it is now, N. Africa just doesnt get any respect, between two humans at least.

[Norse]

Good idea Sol!

How about allowing units to be operated from UK to Gibraltar, and from there to Egypt? This way, you pay twice the prise (operate*2) but don't haveto worry about the Italian navy (also representing allied transports coming up the suez from the other parts of the world), and it let's you add 1 unit each turn if you keep moving units down this way, so balance of power doesn't get skewed overnight.

Gibraltar would be a much bigger prize too, and we can expect to see the entire med heat up much more

~Norse~

[Panzer39]

Originally posted by Norse:

Good idea Sol!

How about allowing units to be operated from UK to Gibraltar, and from there to Egypt? This way, you pay twice the prise (operate*2) but don't haveto worry about the Italian navy (also representing allied transports coming up the suez from the other parts of the world), and it let's you add 1 unit each turn if you keep moving units down this way, so balance of power doesn't get skewed overnight.

Gibraltar would be a much bigger prize too, and we can expect to see the entire med heat up much more

~Norse~

Only problem with this idea is if the Axis invades Spain. The allies could effectively open up an European front without having to land troops. I'd rather create a Suez city and allow 1 unit to be built there each turn.

[gunnergoz]

How about the inclusion of a Operational Movement Box into which we place UK units that will go around the Horn to Alexandria? This could also simulate those units that will be arriving from Empire points farther East, such as India or Australia. The units are placed in the box, to arrive at Alexandria a set number of turns later.

Hubert: could the present engine accomodate this?

[Norse]

Originally posted by Panzer39:

Only problem with this idea is if the Axis invades Spain. The allies could effectively open up an European front without having to land troops.

Good point, I didn't think about that.

How about this, ah this would probably be hell for Hubert to code into the game, but how about predestinating a unit to operate as normal from Britain, to Alexandria in Egypt. And then it operates first to Gibraltar where it stops, and on the 2nd turn it arrives in Alexandria. On the 3rd turn you can move it around as normal. That way, this specual rule (since "behind the scene", it also includes the movement around south-africa, from india etc), does not open up some kind of "cheating" route into Europe for the allies. If you want to send units to Europe, then you must transport them over as normal, and the axis still got the chance to hit the transports. How about that?

~Norse~