[VOTE] South Atlantic/Red Sea Loops

[Hubert Cater]

Interesting debate and in order to preserve game play I think a vote will help me understand what most people are after here... as it is now (from my end) there are only 2 real choices (also feel free to add a brief explanation for your decision):

1) Keep it as is

OR

2) Limit naval unit arrivals to only within the Red Sea

Thanks!

Hubert

Edit: I should add that while there has been a discussion relating to blocking naval unit arrivals via scripts off hand I don't see how this is possible. This would have to be something that is hard coded and presently that is not an option. Essentially the naval loops allow units to arrive within a 1 tile radius of the specified #FINISH_POSITION and this is not affected by the presence of enemy naval units other than the fact an arriving unit cannot arrive on the same tile as an enemy unit.

[ October 27, 2006, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[Lars]

You mean Red Sea? Suez is the canal.

[simov]

I would like it to be kept as it is. A better option might be, as Terif said, to have larger map that would contain more of the red sea. Also, I'd like to get arrows to Iraq. I think the British would have continued to fight from Iraq and India even if Eqypt were lost.

[SeaMonkey]

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?

[SeaMonkey]

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

[Blashy]

I want a possible block, I guess you can do that via the FINNISH POSITION?

Have 2 Finish POSITIONS (the arrows). That means six tiles would need to be blocked. The player can use whatever vessel (transports, subs, bb, etc...) but whatever he uses he would need at least 4 and that would expend resources.

If the player blocks with 4 transports, they'll easily be crushed by 2 war vessels. If he uses 6 transports that's 6 corps that are missing on the other fronts, the cost is not light for Axis.

The Axis will need at least 2 war vessels if it only uses 4 vessels to cover somewhat effectively. It still could not hold off a continued invasion.

And any transports used can easily be a simulation of sunken shipping vessels or troops on land with battlements.

At least it is logical, the Suez canal could EASILY have been defended and cairo as well with enough resources, a full blockade of 6 transports is a heavy cost for the Axis.

Just take the time to do the research on the area, even the Red Sea and Ethiopia / Southern Egypt, in those days (even today) supply issues! It becomes evident it could be blocked. The resources needed would have been astronomical, nothing the Allies could muster... ok the DDay invasion could have done... the Axis would have had plenty of time to send reinforcements and block them. It is not realistic that it could have happened. The geographical position makes that clear, period.

- Vote Blockade possible at a heavy cost. It will open up the game in other locations for sure.

NOTE: I also vote for a loop to Iraq... 1 arrow, 5 turns.

[ October 27, 2006, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[Terif]

Keep it as is because:

- it is more realistic that Allies have the option to invade Egypt and can´t be blocked so easily. As long as the map is not enhanced to the south, keeping Alexandria as second entry point is the best way to achieve this.

- and the most important for me : I like to have as many options as possible and I see no reason why this option should be removed so Allies have no realistic possibility any more to liberate Egypt via the Suez route. Would only leed to a less interesting game.

[Jollyguy]

Well, with only two options, I would vote to keep as is, as I believe Terif has the more persuasive argument. In all other areas of the board the Allies can bring dozens of units to bear to force a landing of their choosing, but not in the Red Sea, ONLY because the map is a limiting variable. Under those constraints, in no way should a handful of (minor) Axis garrison units guarantee that the Allies cannot land.

So, if the Red Sea map area is not going to be expanded, I say keep as is.

However, if the map is going to be expanded to allow tens of Allied units to eventually pop-up, or as Sea Monkey says, another invasion route opened up (Iran, like what happened in reality?), I say modify to Red Sea only and make the Allies fight, like in other areas.

Bob

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Lars:

You mean Red Sea? Suez is the canal.

Oops, correction noted in the original post

[Retributar]

Even though i don't 100% understand all the implications of the argument as much as i would like to, i still like Jollyguy's final assessment/conclusion the best!.

[JerseyJohn]

I think I finally understand what's being discussed here and at the other thread.

Agree with Sea Monkey's point, landings should be made in the Red Sea area and not include tiles bordering the Mediteranean if the Suez Canal is controlled by the Axis -- as there would be no way for the Allies to move through the canal from the Red Sea into the Mediteranean. But if the Allies control the canal I can't see a reason why they wouldn't move through it if they wished, offloading in Alexandria, or some other controlled port.

-- If that distinction can't be made, I'd vote to have the loop only offload on Red Sea tiles.

[Blashy]

Lets have a compromise.

You can land ONLY amphibious troops each side of the arrows. This represents troop unloading in the Red Sea and moving towards Cairo.

But NO naval units, period. The Suez Canal can be rendered unpassable VERY easily and defended very easily (Sink merchant ships all, patrol with warships, install tons of mines, have gun batteries in each side). If you do the homework on the geography this becomes obvious.

So amphibious troops could land and if the Axis players don't have that area protected properly, they'll fail.

If Hubert can not code it to only have amphibious land. Then a blockade of six vessels is the best and most realistic solution, it represents the massive defenses, so massive that the Allies would not have made the attack as the risk were too great (poor supply).

[hellraiser]

Leave as it is but force transports to either unload or wait - no transports popping near Alexandria and sailing and capturing Tobruk or Athens or whatever during the same turn (dunno if it is possible but this is they way that I see it and it pretty much achieves a compromise between the 2 opposite opinions).

[SeaMonkey]

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?

[Lars]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

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

That's what I'd do. Have them kick out near Kuwait instead.

Of course, if the map is extended down to Aden, all these problems go away...

[rleete]

I vote you quit bitching about it, and accept whatever Hubert decides to do!

Seriously, I see the point, and have just always considered it an abstraction. But, if it's going to be changed, I agree with limiting arivals to only within the Suez. I'd also like to see blocking possible, but 6 vessels/units seems a bit excessive. A couple of large warships could effectively blockade transports.

Think about it. Cruisers have been spotted patrolling the coast. Are you gonna send in the landing craft anyway? The slaughter that resulted would mean court marshal, if your own surviving troops didn't get to you first.

[Ottosmops]

One could leave the Suez loop as it is, but reduce the strength of the incoming Allied Ships by a random number.

This random loss would simulate the fighting that takes place south of the map, and the size of the loss could depend upon the number of the Axis naval units in the Red Sea and the number of Axis air units adjacent to the Red Sea.

This could prevent the Allied Player to use extremely many units in this operation, because in this case he would lose a lot of MPP's.

And the Axis player would have an incentive to station some air and naval units in Egypt.

[Honch]

For those who are interested in downloading mods (I know some of you are not), I have expanded the map North, South, East and West, therefore not needing ANY naval loops in my Honch Expanded Mod. V9 is on cmmods and V10 is just waiting for the new patch.

[Capt Andrew]

Choice 1.

[Edwin P.]

Keep it as is (or extend the map further south).

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks for the feedback everyone, I'm going to experiment a bit with Option #2 as we continue to test the next patch release and see what testing shows and go from there.

Hubert

[SeaMonkey]

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.

[SeaMonkey]

Thankfully HC has one. ( a military mind)

[JerseyJohn]

In reality, an invasion of southern Arabia, or any point out of the Persian Gulf, wouldn't have originated in either the United States or the UK. It would have been staged from South Africa or Southeast Africa.

So, to make this realistic, there would need to be some a to cover that -- or have more of Africa in the standard map (a lot more). Or place a box in the Persian Gulf to represent Commonwealth South Africa and an option to have one or more Atlantic links offload there for the buildup.

[SeaMonkey]

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.