German Options

[Straha]

Originally posted by SuperTed:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ancient One:

...I'm also wondering, does Iraq begin controlled by the UK in SC? It should, not like in CoS where it is neutral.

AO,

Iraq is nuetral, as it is today. </font>

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by SuperTed:

AO,

Iraq is nuetral, as it is today.

Why? :confused:

[Straha]

Originally posted by Ancient One:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SuperTed:

AO,

Iraq is nuetral, as it is today.

Why? :confused: </font>

[Ancient One]

Iraq wasn't any more neutral than Egypt (who never declared war on Germany until near the end of the war), yet I'm assuming the UK get's MPPs from Egypt. Iraq did indeed have considerable autonomy, but historically it's oil was exported to the UK, on terms dictated by the UK.

Iraqi or "Persian" neutrality wasn't a huge problem in CoS because overseas resources were represented by convoys. The UK normally got 4 pp from Canada and 5 pp from Asia each turn. If Alexandria fell, the 5 pp from Asia were cut off, therefore the UK had great incentive to put a major effort defending Egypt.

The thing is, AFAIK SC doesn't have convoys, all resources are represented on map. So unless there are several resource hexes around the Suez Canal, or Middle East oil under UK control, the UK doesn't really have much at stake in Africa/Middle East.

[ April 28, 2002, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Ancient One ]

[Straha]

Originally posted by Ancient One:

The thing is, AFAIK SC doesn't have convoys, all resources are represented on map. So unless there are several resource hexes around the Suez Canal, or Middle East oil under UK control, the UK doesn't really have much at stake in Africa/Middle East.

Hmm, this really could pose a problem. I concede, I didn't think of that.

But, then, if the oil resources in Iraq are simply given to the UK (the scenario editor should allow making Iraq allied!), then this in turn raises the question of play-balance as the game was tested with Iraq neutral. AFAIK we can't place additional resources within the editor (else, we could fiddle around with e.g. making the Ruhr area two hexes etc.)

Another problem with making Iraq allied could maybe arise through the common border with the USSR. Wouldn't the Soviets then be allowed to operationally transfer troops to Egypt? (At least, this situation could arise in COS).

Straha

[Hubert Cater]

The UK will be cash strapped, and while there are no convoys, the ports do translate to represent a part of the income for any country that has them so it is important to maintain them. If the UK loses Alexandria it will be felt economically since they lose a port (which can be viewed as a generalization of convoy income) and they will lose a city. Also strategically, keeping Alexandria under UK control will play it's part as it would otherwise be very difficult for the Axis to get into Iraq without it, and it also ties up units for the Axis that could be used elsewhere.

For the UK, even just maintaining the status quo in North Africa is important because they would most certainly feel the alternatives

[Ancient One]

Well I guess the setup is ok as is, as long as things work out realistically in practice.

[ April 29, 2002, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Ancient One ]

[Straha]

Originally posted by Ancient One:

Well I guess the setup is ok as is, as long as things work out realistically in practice.

Hey, just when I was about to get convinced that you were right and I was wrong!

Seems we both forgot the ports in their functioning as resources. There is still an issue left with the lacking of convoys you mentioned, and it is the role of the subs. It seems like, in SC, the subs are solely there to attack military crafts. But this role of the subs was more or less marginal (not so much in the Pacific, but in the Atlantic ocean it was).

So shouldn't there be some modifier deducting from the worth of ports depending on the amount of enemy subs operating in the area?

Straha

[Hubert Cater]

Correct, this is something that I have been quietly working on and it follows closely with what you've just suggested. It might also just solve the Battle of the Atlantic requests and make subs that strategic unit everybody is looking for

I'll keep everyone posted as to the results

Hubert

[Straha]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Correct, this is something that I have been quietly working on and it follows closely with what you've just suggested. It might also just solve the Battle of the Atlantic requests and make subs that strategic unit everybody is looking for

I'll keep everyone posted as to the results

Hubert

Hubert, that's great news! Thank you!

Straha

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by Straha:

Hey, just when I was about to get convinced that you were right and I was wrong!

Originally posted by Straha:

Seems we both forgot the ports in their functioning as resources. There is still an issue left with the lacking of convoys you mentioned, and it is the role of the subs. It seems like, in SC, the subs are solely there to attack military crafts. But this role of the subs was more or less marginal (not so much in the Pacific, but in the Atlantic ocean it was).

So shouldn't there be some modifier deducting from the worth of ports depending on the amount of enemy subs operating in the area?

Straha

Good Idea.

[BloodyBucket]

Excellent idea. The use of subs as a tool to strangle commerce is certainly something that would add to the decisions both sides must make, and subs existing only as warship killers would be a dissapointment.

Getting ready for SC, I picked up a copy of "The Hitler Options", edited by Kenneth Macksey. It is collection of "what if?" scenarios. They include:

</font>

• Sea Lion </font>
• Sphinx (Raeder's Med option, Malta invaded) </font>
• Through the Soft Underbelly (Allies invade from Med) </font>
• Bloody Normandy (Rommel present at D-Day, panzers unleashed) </font>

There are others, including early German jets, allied strategic bombing changes, etc. Haven't got through it yet, but it does get one in that SC mood.

[Hubert Cater]

Great book! Truth be told, it was part of the inspiration to make this game

[Desert Dave]

Wow! I am enthused all over again!

At least a little of the Battle of the Atlantic?

Is this responsiveness by the game maker or what?

Or, hmmmm, was it planned all along as one of those surprises that have been promised... and here we were getting down and out about no sub strategic warfare.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by Ancient One:

Iraq wasn't any more neutral than Egypt (who never declared war on Germany until near the end of the war), yet I'm assuming the UK get's MPPs from Egypt. Iraq did indeed have considerable autonomy, but historically it's oil was exported to the UK, on terms dictated by the UK.

This is indeed true, but it is also true that in April '41 there was a pro-Axis coup in Iraq, and the leaders in Baghdad invited the Germans and Italians to send in any and all forces possible.

Unfortunately for the Iraqis, the Brits landed several elements of the Indian Army (including some Ghurkas) in Basra first, by the end of April. The Iraqis responded by surrounding the area with several thousand troops of their own. And by the middle of May, the Luftwaffe had flown in several aircraft from bases in Greece to back their new allies up. Also unfortunately for the Iraqis, Hitler was too busy gearing up for the invasion of the USSR to send anything else.

Fortunately for the Brits surrounded in Basra, a relief column pressed in from Palestine and broke the siege, and then the combined force marched on Baghdad --- it was all over by June.

[Mr. Clark]

Wow! Just increasing Subs potential in that way would add so much depth to the game!

Every day there is a new surprise that makes me want this game even more!