[VOTE] South Atlantic/Red Sea Loops

[Bromley]

My vote, if we're still counting, is for 2. That still allows for an unreasonable surprise in some situations (large Allied fleet in the Red Sea when Egypt is Axis), whilst removing the worst of it (free access through the Suez).

[Moonslayer]

I vote for 2 also and, for some players information, I am still working on my africa mod... which extends the map down to aden and the djibouti area.

Who knows, I may even finish it someday ;P

[Iron Ranger]

Vote #2

People want to talk about the ease of blocking the Suez? Well unless its changed building a fortress hex shuts down that hex to naval travel. Makes sence that if you pour a few tons of concrete that getting a ship to floot on it will be hard. Blocking with crops in transports? Very gamey.. sad that so many reduce to this kind of play. And costly, thats 10 units that could be used somewhere else. Blushy said it best.... the Suez was a key because it controled the flow of trafic from the Med (eroupe) to the Indian Ocian and all the waters past that. Allowing ships (amphib / war ships / transports) to magicial bypass this key site in history is a mistake.

Open a second route to Iran/Iraq (for Yoda's desired more options route)

Incress the number of turns for both. Present its quicker to get from the mid alantic to Egypt, then straight through the Med. Ships should come out it very weak supply... can you imagian the stress on the combat troops. battle loaded for a trip from USA to the Red Sea? Perhaps they off loaded and reloaded in South Africa but still that one long haul.

Does anyone have the numbers on the actually time it took to go from the Rock to Egpyt, or the long route Rock to South Africa to Egypt? In 1942?

[Terif]

Lastly it comes down to historical accurracy vs playability :

If you want it to be historical accurate, then you would also have to forbid/make impossible all other large scale invasions in different locations than France (like Cassablanca, Portugal, Scandinavia, Northern Germany, etc...) - since historically Allies didn´t have the capacity/abilities to do that in WWII. And there are many other things too you have to change if you want a historical simulation. But then you really narrow the game down and it is no longer the good game it used to be. You can repeat history, but that´s it...at least to me that would make no fun.

Not to be able to pass Suez when it is conquered by Axis may be more historical, but then an invasion there to liberate Egypt is simply no option any more and that part of the map is dead for action. Sure, could be new/unexperienced players will still try it, but any able axis player will simply turn it into a death trap so it only will be suicide mission.

For multiplayer games IMHO we need an open game with many interesting possibilities and what ifs to get the best and most interesting games that are fun to play. From this view point I can only say leave Suez as is, or this option is dead in mulitplayer between experienced players - it´s not a really huge loss as it won´t be done too often in any case since it is not the most attractive invasion site compared to others, but nevertheless.

[Blashy]

Ok so we disagree.

You don't want to have an accurate as possible WW2 game while I do.

After all, it is the WW2 map, the units, etc...

And if the Suez can be blocked with alot of units, it does open up the game, those units would be somewhere else, blocking Casablanca or Portugal or Iraq or Norway in high numbers.

You block Suez with 4-6 troops, somewhere else opens up, it is up to the Allies to exploit this.

AND we all support having a couple of arrows for Iraq as well, that would be another area to protect.

[SeaMonkey]

Terif, think about what you are saying, those other areas are open to invasion if you present an adequate force to accomplish the mission(historical). The geographic restrictions don't exist there. The enemy has every chance to interdict.

Because the southern opening of the Red Sea is not represented and in addition the potential restriction of the Suez canal, its crazy to allow the game mechanics to magically deploy the Allied invasion force from the Atlantic into the Med, with no chance of enemy interaction in between. Its like 10000 kilometers! :eek:

This is not Star Trek or the Final Countdown, it is a simulation of WW2.

Besides, I've not heard you comment about the potential of the Persian Gulf invasion route(Kuwait). We shut down one, because it is geographically and historically bordering on the impossible, and open up the other which is historical, was accomplished, and "viola" you have your avenue for the Allies to rejoin the conflict in the Med/MidEast. :cool:

Sorry Terif, I just don't understand your reasoning. You of all people should easily be able to grasp these strategic principles of warfare. Your position is illogical!

Just call me Mr. Spock.

[Terif]

@SeaMonkey (+Blashy):

I understand that you want it to be a simulation of WW2, that´s ok and for AI games or mods I wouldn´t say anything against it.

But SC2 is first and foremost a game for me that I want to play in multiplayer on the standard map and not against the AI - and when I play a game I want to have fun and long and good battles with many possibilities for both sides - not to narrow it down to what has been done in history...then I don´t need to play the game .

And it is pretty simple:

If you limit the arrival to the red sea with the current small map, then only suicidal or new players will enter this area again with an invasion force since 3 defending units are more than enough to stop what can arrive in the Red Sea, i.e. this option is virtually eliminated in multiplayer games.

As for the Persion Gulf invasion route - nothing against it, but it can´t replace the Suez option since this can be defended even more easily as Axis only need to place there 1-2 units to block anything.

[Terif]

However, the Suez option as it is in 1.04, is everything else than a very favourabel option for Allies since it is risky and extremely expensive since Allies have to send their units as amphibs and a large part of their fleet. With these ressources they can invade much more easily anywhere else. So lastly this is only an interesting option for the right opportunities and nothing that will be used in every game...more every 10th game or so... .

In other words: if you really want to eliminate this option so be it, it wouldn´t be a too great loss, nevertheless a loss of playability.

And so I come to my conclusion from some posts above :

It depends on if you want to sacrifice a part of the playability to achieve a closer historical accurracy. I personally would prefer not as I play SC2 as a game, but that depends on everyone himself and in the end this is the decission of Hubert .

[SeaMonkey]

Your right Terif it(SC) is foremost a game and we both want the same thing, I too am MP only.

No disrespect, we just have a different perspective. I see these areas as diversions for the real thing with the potential to develop into a full scale offensive(the real thing) if your opponent doesn't react properly.

I view these avenues as needless expenditures for an overly aggressive Axis to garrison, thus opening himself up in other arenas.

So if we want to accomplish the same thing, then we need to set out some definitions for HC and the betas to test. We need to compromise, reality and gameplay, a fine balance.

You are the player, I'm the idea man. All of us fall into these two categories one way or another, interacting to a final conclusion that we all can play with.

Idea. Add the ability to move ?(max.) number of invading forces per turn to Red Sea and Persian Gulf areas from Atlantic arrows.

Question. Can some of the land tiles in these areas be converted to sea to allow ? numbers of invaders per turn?

Define the ? max number per turn.

Terif? Blashy? Forum?

[ October 28, 2006, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[SeaMonkey]

Defining the ? max. number per turn.

What is that number based on what actually, historically, under the most optimum conditions could be tranfered in a turn(1 week to 1 month)?

What is suitable(? max. no.) for gameplay that the Axis should have to prepare for in both areas to disallow that Allied success?

We'll all need to apply KISS principles when addressing these questions, don't overly complicate the matter.

[Anders S]

Had a look at the sothern entry to the Red Sea, the Bab el Mandeb sound. The island of Perim divides the sound into two channels. The eastern is narrow and shallow but should be navigable. The western is 20 km wide and fairly deep.

Further more, the island of Perim and the whole Aden area was under UK control. This area is outside the map so there is no point in arguing that it could have been Axis controlled (which probably would have been difficult for Axis to accomplish in real life), as the African side was at the beginning of the war.

Conclusion: I see no topographical problem of entering the Red Sea from the south, and I don't see that it would have been possible for Axis to block the route, even if Axis had the African side under control.

Vote: Unless the map is extended to the south by just a row of tiles or two, let's keep it as it is.

[Blashy]

As long as the pop up of troops at Alexandria is no longer possible, I don't have a problem with having it remain.

The Axis will have to station 2-3 troops at Cairo to prevent a successful invasion, that is costly in itself for the Axis.

[Liam]

This strategy pays when the Axis are thinned out in other Theatres, you can then send in the American's with 5 Land units an HQ, and several Ships! Boom! The entire Front will fall, not completely ahistorical in that India is a perfect pad to hit Africa, or South Africa... However with the Recovery of Egypt, which is not reflected is Axis Conquest and Liberation movements in Africa! Italian East Africa would've been retaken by the Italians and Germans speerheading a small force to crush all the British Garrisons in Africa as in WW1. The Germans should get 1 or 2 corpsize units, African volunteers fighting against their opressors in Cairo Egypt the minute the Allies show up! The Axis would have been favored in Africa/Arabia despite their Ideologies, all of those colonies loathed the Allies.

[acrashb]

option 2, please.

[Korut Zelva]

#2