Middle east - what would it take to ...

[Iron Ranger]

bring this region into play (again?). House Rules, Edited Fall Weiss, ....??

[kurt88]

If Turkey joins the fighting on either side the situation in the Middle-East and the med can change.

Maybe make the starting positions for Italy and UK in the med a bit stronger from the beginning.

This would ofcourse not be historical.

Problem is there's almost no supply and no room.

We need a bigger map.Especially North-Africa needs improving and then the Middle-East will automatically become more important.

[Terif]

If you want a fight for Iraq and the Med, then you have at least two options (against a Veteran player):

- either give Iraq to Allies and place some ships, units and a Hq near Egypt. But most likely Axis will kill all allied units there (unless you give them really a lot), since Tobruk cant be conquered and serves as an airfleet base...

- or simply allow Allies to Dow Italy and land with transports. You only need to forbid the Rome gambit, but not the normal italian gambit. Then you have no guarantee for a fight for the Middle east, but if Allies wants to, they can do it successfully. Its only possible to hold Iraq/Egypt when Tobruk and Tripoli have been conquered, which is usually only possible with a preemptive strike (DoW + Landing in the same turn).

If Tobruk and Tripoli are conquered and Axis needs to reconquer some italian cities in the mainland, this gives Allies enough time to establish a strong position in the Med, but still both sides can win the Med war and a lot of big battles will occur.

If you want to be sure to have a Med war, then you can also combine option 1 with no2: e.g. give UK Iraq and allow the landings. Usually Allies wont give up Iraq so easy if they already have it and will attack Italy...

[jon_j_rambo]

Proper play in Egypt requires eliminating the landing bonus. Some play testing is criticial.

Middle East needs sand! Another type of terrian might mix it up. Allow the UK to use the Suez reverse route & allow warships to use the Canal (I think that's realistic?).

[Edwin P.]

I say lets give Turkey a % chance to Annex Iraq if Egypt falls to the Axis and a chance to Annex Vichy Syria if the Axis attack Vichy France.

This would often, but not always, preclude the MPP boost Germany receives from conquering Iraq. Germany attacking Iraq after Turkey annexed it would cause Turkey to enter the war and may trigger the early entry of Russia.

Ah, now if only the map could extend south about 10 hexes you could see UK staging areas in Kenya and Oman, the true extent of the Sahara and the jungles of Ethiopia.

[ October 24, 2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Iron Ranger]

Good ideas Terif - basicly the same ideas I was thinking. In more detail it would be;

1) replace the two Canadian units with UK units and move the Canadian units to Suez. Reduced thier str to 2 and rename "Indian 4th" "ANZOC force"

2) Change the house rule to only refrain from the Rome Gambit.

Proper play in Egypt requires eliminating the landing bonus. Some play testing is criticial.

I like this idea even more. Leave the std senerio as is but put in a house rule on Amphibious landings.

HR AL) Landings not involving a port must be conducted within the range of a port supply + 1.

Example: A UK landing near Gabralter must be with in 6 hexs (port supply 5+1).

Advanced verson: The landing must be acomplised the same turn the unit boards the transport (only for port-ship-land not port to port). A transport can return to the port to 'resupply' but then loses the +1 bonus on distance.

Example: Germany launchs her invasion fleet for Norway (turn A1 - max distance 11). UK counter attacks the fleet (turn A2). Germany desides to retreat the damaged ships and transports (turnB1) - the transports that make it to port can turn around on the next turn (turn C1) and be in position to perform an amphisious landing (turn D1 - distance 10 max, not 11)- any transports that did not make the port must 'resupply' on the next turn, or the next ....

Thoughts? This would make the invasion of USA impossialbe, Rome gambit impossable and would restrict the normal Itialian gambit to something realistic.

I have thought this through and I think it would solve alot of the porblems with the overpowering use of transports and thier landing bonus.

Remember - combat loading of troops on ship was rare and costly - these troops didn't and couldn't sit in these ships forever due to the supply/moral/leadership problems that would exist. The only time this did happen was operation Torch when the US troops left the USA and landed on VF soil, if the VF troops had fought at all that landing could have been a disastor in the short run.

Feedback? Test games?

[Edwin P.]

Iron Ranger

I like the idea of giving England two reduced strength corps in Egypt.

I would also give the UK the option to receive a free Corps from South Africa. They could decide to have it appear in Egypt or the South Atlantic. Perhaps they should have the same choice with the Australian and Indian Corps - do they go to Egypt or the South Atlantic?

Your advanced Version " The landing must be acomplised the same turn the unit boards the transport (only for port-ship-land not port to port)." would give the Axis too much of an advantage.

For example: UK & US units could only invade France along the shores of Brest, assuming that they used Manchester and London's port was knocked out. The Allies could never even threaten to liberate a conqured Spain or launch a rain on Greece from Egypt.

Futhermore, I think that the transit hex around Africa should be made into a two way hex to allow the allies the opportunity to run away to fight another day. If that change was made I could see an allied player committing several surface ships to the defense of Egypt.

[ October 25, 2003, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Iron Ranger]

IT would be an army and a corps not two corps.

Put a ship in the London put so it will advance up to 10. The same could be said for Germanys attempt to sealion.

USA is within reach of spain (11 hexs)

Allies could reach the Greek shore if a land connection to Moscow is made (port str 10) or they take Torbuck.

The rule would help the Allies far more then the Axis and slow the Axis down. Mayb enough to make the game balanced.

[Edwin P.]

Many thanks Thanks for the clarification.

I had not thought about taking Tobruk before attacking Greece.

But I still think that the US can not reach Spain in one turn per your advanced rules and if Germans reduced the port of London ; an incentive for the historical German Blitz of London), the UK ability to launch a sea invasion would be sharpely reduced.

Still, it would be interesting to play a game with these rules and see what the effect is.

[SeaMonkey]

Hate to bring this up again, but you guys still(obviously) haven't played JJ's Z-plan tourney II edition. It takes all these comments into consideration and the Mid-East/Africa area is an "Area in Flames" and balanced.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Edwin P & Iron Ranger

The things you are talking about I've done and played (against humans) over the last six (6) months. I've incorporated those changes into the '39 Historically Responsible Campaign and House Rules. I'll outline the relevent changes below.

The UK needs time to build up its Middle East forces, as well as ship forces from UK and possibly Canada. Its something you have to start on Turn 1, incrementing those units 1 str pt a turn, since you don't want to lose the experience bars they have. Otherwise, they are no more effective than the Italian units.

UK has to make a decision though, on what to send to Middle East. Send too many, and UK is vulnearlbe to Sea Lion. Send too little, and Axis can potentially get more units to North Africa to defeat you.

Tobruk is key to the Axis, since without it, they have lost North Africa (the only port, hence the only way to get units into North Africa).

Malta is key to the Allies, since without it, they cannot invade Sicily. Malta, along with Gibralter, allow the Allies to invade North Africa from the West, if that is required.

Vichy is now key. As a neutral, its a good way to limit Allied choices on invasion points in the Med. Its almost impossible to take all three Vichy areas at once, so whatever side invades Vichy, gives his opponent some freebie units and land. That could be a bad mistake.

Based on those strategic options, choices are made. Assume Axis go for Egypt. Its a one or two turn trip from Italy to Tobruk. That implies that you have properly used the Italian Navy to keep that sea route open. Since there are limited hexes and supply support in North Africa, you have to be careful on what you send to Tobruk. Two Italian Armies, one German Panzer and one German HQ work out about right. If you're really going after Egypt, you'll send two or three German air units to Tobruk as well, eventually replacing with Italian air.

Then the battle for the Middle East begins.

If done properly, Greece cannot be invaded by sea (since UK ships will stop you), so it has to come from overland. That allows the option of the UK to send units (including HQ) to Greece thru the port.

The Russian "clock" is ticking, since once Russia enters, if UK still has Middle East, it now has land route to a capital, and the Middle East cities will now increase beyond strength of five (5). American or Russian units can enter the Middle East (or even go into Russia). That puts the Axis in a bad spot. For example, with only eight (8) ground units, Italians have to be very selective about where they defend, almost always requiring German help. Otherwise, the Allies can open up the Southern front in Europe.

Relevant Changes

Germany starts off with Norway and Iraq.

UK has a 5 str Corp that will take two turns to reach undefended Iraq. Then UK gets the plunder and Iraq.

Egypt has Wavell HQ, one more naval unit. The 8th Army (ie UK Army) starts out in England as a 1 str unit. Wavell and the XIII Corp (in Alexandria) are understrength (str 2 and str 6 respectively).

Amphib can only occur four (4) hexes from a port you control.

Transport movement (from port to port) is unlimited.

Italy limited to eight ground units.

UK limited to twelve ground units.

Germany limited to four air units.

Italy limited to two air units.

UK limited to two air units.

Free French option OFF.

Germany can invade Vichy France, but there is a diplomatic cost that could result in Spain or Turkey joining the Allies.

[Edwin P.]

Shaka of Carthage

Many Thanks for the info I will visit the SC COmmand site and download your scenario. I like how you handled the Middle East.

[Iron Ranger]

Thanks for the feedback guys -

- rest of post irrelivant -

[ October 25, 2003, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: Iron Ranger ]

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Terif:

- or simply allow Allies to Dow Italy and land with transports. You only need to forbid the Rome gambit, but not the normal italian gambit. Then you have no guarantee for a fight for the Middle east, but if Allies wants to, they can do it successfully. Its only possible to hold Iraq/Egypt when Tobruk and Tripoli have been conquered, which is usually only possible with a preemptive strike (DoW + Landing in the same turn).

If Tobruk and Tripoli are conquered and Axis needs to reconquer some italian cities in the mainland, this gives Allies enough time to establish a strong position in the Med, but still both sides can win the Med war and a lot of big battles will occur.

Exactly my point of view, taking away the the Italien gambit, only gives the med. directly to the axis player, besides he does´t has to worry about preventing an italien gambit though he can concentrate all his air power to take out the netherlands and conquering all the minors and building up for the final assault on rusia.

If the allies attack Ireland, Italy etc. it could be smarter for the axis player delaying the occupation of the the minors thus preventing the war entry of the USA.

Though DOW onItaly leads to an more interessting game in my IMHO.

Only improvement I would like to see in the Fall Weis 39´is a higher entrechment level of the corps in Rome (thus making the Rome gambit really a GAMBIT) or replace the corps with an army in the north of italy thus making it harder to take out Rome in the first turn of invasion

[Edwin P.]

Sombra - I like your idea about the unit in Rome entrenching.

I would have the unit in Rome start entrenching on the first turn that an allied unit is within 2 hexes of Rome at the start of the Axis turn. So if the allies moves a transport or naval unit next to Rome the Corps in Rome starts to entrench. IF the allies move next to Rome but don't invade for 2 turns then the Rome corps starts at entrenchment level 2.

I would also vary the starting location of the Italian Fleet near Venice. Perhaps 10% of the time its starting location should be close to Albania. Along with this the starting location of the German subs in the North Atlantic should also vary to make it more of a hunt for the Allied navies.

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

Sombra - I like your idea about the unit in Rome entrenching.

I would also vary the starting location of the Italian Fleet near Venice. Perhaps 10% of the time its starting location should be close to Albania. Along with this the starting location of the German subs in the North Atlantic should also vary to make it more of a hunt for the Allied navies.

Another nice idea, I think its a little bid sad that it is considered game breaking trying to take out the axis fleet in Italy in the first turns. On the other hand considered perfectly normal giving Norway, Greece the Med on silver plate to the Axis player...

[ October 29, 2003, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ]