Malta & Tunis

[Lars]

Why no Malta effect for Tunis yet we get one for the rest of Africa? Seems odd, it's a heck of a lot closer to the island than Tobruk.

[Liam]

Originally posted by Lars:

Why no Malta effect for Tunis yet we get one for the rest of Africa? Seems odd, it's a heck of a lot closer to the island than Tobruk.

Interesting, it seems to mainly hit those areas they definitely know will be Axis Occuppied, the damage regardless is sufficient.

Personally, the supply disaster of Libya and Egypt makes the conquest of North Africa quite a delay. You do not need to spread it any further. I have been held up actually at least 7 or 8 turns waiting to get up enough supply to kill Egypt off ALONE! Of course the guy I was playing didn't realize this and it was good for me, I just waited and waited till I had enough supply to crush him. It was down nearly nothing most of that time

[Lars]

Well, I noticed it when the US did a Torch.

There my Italians sat in Tunis, fat, dumb and happy right next to Malta and killing Yanks with no problem.

Meanwhile, over in Tobruk, they were all out of spaghetti..

Think Malta should be expanded on some rational basis if we're stuck with it. And I'd like to see it work for the Axis if they manage to get a hold of it. Also, should be one for Crete.

[Liam]

technically speaking you would be right Lars, Crete would effect, Eastern Med Supply, Malta Central Supply and Gibralater Western Med...

However not sure HC wants to get that detailed.

Originally posted by Lars:

Well, I noticed it when the US did a Torch.

There my Italians sat in Tunis, fat, dumb and happy right next to Malta and killing Yanks with no problem.

Meanwhile, over in Tobruk, they were all out of spaghetti..

Think Malta should be expanded on some rational basis if we're stuck with it. And I'd like to see it work for the Axis if they manage to get a hold of it. Also, should be one for Crete.

[Capt Andrew]

Re Crete: Im not sure I'd want to see Crete scripted for the regular scenarios. An expanded Med mod scenario would certainly be enhanced by one though.

Re Malta: I think Malta's effect in SC2 still needs some tweaking. Im certainly no Edwin in coming up with suggestions, but I'd like to see:

1) Malta effect canceled with Axis control of Gibraltar. With all the Allied supply problems that already existed, supply missions such as Operation Pedestal would never have been successful in the first place with Axis control.

2) No air operation to Malta until Jan '41. Someone might be able to find differing statistics, but I believe Malta had no significant (whatsoever) air presence until spring/summer '41. The only real air presence was due to RN carriers.

3) Edit Malta supply effects depending on unit stationed on Malta. For example, reduce supply effect for land unit based on Malta, standard effect for fighter, and increased supply interdiction for bomber present.

4) Script the Malta supply distruption based on the point value of nearby Axis naval/air units. Scale the percentage of the Malta effect based on this point check. For example, script checks a 5 hex range from Malta. If >35 total naval+air points present, Malta script trigger is only 5%. If 15-34 pts present, Malta supply trigger script is standard 10%. <15 pts, increase trigger to 17%.

I really think that this would add more of a historical feel to the campaign without greatly altering gameplay. Especially suggestion #4. I think this would encourage more naval/air skirmishes around Malta. Just my $.02.

[TaoJah]

I never understood how Malta could affect the supply so bad... When you got all of North Africa except Egypt, when you got Gibraltar, when you got Greece, when you got Turkey, it STILL does the same...

It needs to be toned done...

At the moment, it doesn't bother my games too much, only half a yar (I always Sealion and make the UK surrender by taking Egypt), but it's simply not right.

[Liam]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

I never understood how Malta could affect the supply so bad... When you got all of North Africa except Egypt, when you got Gibraltar, when you got Greece, when you got Turkey, it STILL does the same...

It needs to be toned done...

At the moment, it doesn't bother my games too much, only half a yar (I always Sealion and make the UK surrender by taking Egypt), but it's simply not right.

good question, why would effect supply so much? Greece is an option to supply the Afrika Corps, I do not understand the logistics myself, but I think that supplying from so far East would put the Royal Navy at Alexandria in striking distance and too far West, well that was Tunis and directly over Malta, considering Malta had a hard time holding itself, how can it inflict damage? Good Question... Maybe it's not Malta but rather the long lines of Supply running across North Africa it represents for the Axis, sadly not the same for the Brits?

[xwormwood]

@Malta:

I don't understand why the malta-effects takes place even when island and harbor have been bombed & shelled to zero.

This needs to be fixed.

And vice versa: while malta lies down for some turns, the allied player should suffer somehow because of no malta.

Axis convoys move unmolested, and allied med-shipping lines would suffer without cover from malta.

there was a reason why the axis attacked and attacked this place over and over again

[Exel]

Originally posted by Capt Andrew:

Edit Malta supply effects depending on unit stationed on Malta. For example, reduce supply effect for land unit based on Malta, standard effect for fighter, and increased supply interdiction for bomber present.

That one I'd like to see. Would make a heck of a lot more sense than a mere corps there causing all that trouble. It would also give the Allied player the concrete option of playing it safe with reduced effect (land unit) or increasing the effect but at the cost of making the island itself more vulnerable (bomber).

[Colin I]

Capt. Andrews,

As with other threads I'd argue just because Malta wasn't developed as an airbase doesn't mean it couldn't have been - as with other non-historical events don't ban them if they didn't happen, ban them if they couldn't happen.

[arado234]

I dont see how malta could cause a problem at all if there are either no ships or planes.In third reich if you dont have either ships or planes there malta has NO effect at all.

[ChrisND]

A few of us modders have already re-made the Malta script and made new Gibraltor, Malta, and Crete scripts. Check out the custom scenarios on cmmods and especially Honch's scenario for the event scitps that cover them.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Interdiction should be something that a unit does, not a script. Integrate interdiction fully into the game, allowing not only sea supply routes to be ravaged, but also land ones (railroad and hubs and so on). Since we already have MPP interdiction, supply interdiction would a logical next step (prob. for SC3 tho...). Would probably need stacking too- thus Malta could have a small infantry garrison along with a bomber and/or a fighter.

[SeaMonkey]

I kind of like the Malta effect as is, it makes it tough for the Axis and you need to make a conscious decision to neutralize it.

Is this not historical?

Now if Gibraltar falls, well that's subject to debate, there's still the African Loop to get supplies in.

Now I will admit, the effect seems a little robust for just a corps garrison. I was under the assumption that it increased with an AF and even greater with a bomber, but as it is now, those deployments are unnecessary.

[arado234]

Alot of maltas success was a result of ultra.The british could get maximum effct with what little they had.I read where that the british were able to intercept a convoy and knew what ships to hit and where the ships were in the convoy.This would not be possible without ultra.They also knew what convoys had the most protection and could avoid them.The germans blamed the italians for a security leak.I dont believe ultra is factored in this game anywhere so maybe the british should have to have ships or planes on malta for it to have any effect.There should also be a limit to what the axis could have in africa due to logistics.I dont no how that could be decided.

[Colin I]

Ultra should be factored into intelligence which - as many have said - should have rather different effects than it does now.

[Liam]

From what I understand before Barbarossa Malta was under siege, so I do not see it serving much use as a base to attack supply. I've already suggested Bombers have a duel role in interdicting supplies but that was obviously never taken seriously.

Originally posted by arado234:

Alot of maltas success was a result of ultra.The british could get maximum effct with what little they had.I read where that the british were able to intercept a convoy and knew what ships to hit and where the ships were in the convoy.This would not be possible without ultra.They also knew what convoys had the most protection and could avoid them.The germans blamed the italians for a security leak.I dont believe ultra is factored in this game anywhere so maybe the british should have to have ships or planes on malta for it to have any effect.There should also be a limit to what the axis could have in africa due to logistics.I dont no how that could be decided.

[arado234]

Yes ,malta got pounded and the german supply problem was solved for a while.Russia soon screwed all that up.

[SeaMonkey]

I took it seriously, Liam.

Let's get some variabilty into these bombers, you can't buy that many anyway.

Define the role, "Bombers"? Level, Strategic, Dive, Tactical(CAS), Recon, Naval, interdiction.

Define AFs? Fighters and Fighter bombers(CAS), interdiction, recon, naval.

CAGs? Naval(includes ASW), Air superiority, recon, interdiction, cas.

Define the primary and secondary roles and assign the combat values accordingly.

[Liam]

SeaMonkey, noone buys bombers but to hammer Supply of the enemy, it doesn't serve a true Strategic Purpose... Historically, game is out of whack due to the limited attack ability, spotting ability and versatility of the Bomber. Iceland and Canada Bomber is worthless! And there is no Bomber in UK to follow up, even though with the amount of UK Naval Fleets would make the North Atlantic worthless to Raid anyway with such upgrades, but perhaps better diving capabilities vs Ships would increase the Sub-Bomber-Atlantic Conflicts as of now,,, noone cares

You can simplify all your Roles, but there should be a few upgrades for Bombers, to make them viable for both Axis and Allies. I simply do not purchase them, only to hammer supply, is it worth it if you Bomber gets intercepted to kill off 50 MPPs? You can lose half the Bomber or more

[Moonslayer]

Rather than have multiple bomber types I would rather see new research types such as 'naval bombers' (+1 to naval attack); 'ASW' (+1 to sub attack); 'Strategic attack' etc. These research types should replace the existing bomber research and only one of each of them should be applicable to any one bomber unit. This would allow for specialisation of bomber units.

[xwormwood]

Panzer General / Peoples General from SSI invented these medal-improvements.

Every now and than a unit got a medal which could bring some benefits, just depending from the unit type.

This way there could be a very few specialist units, which would lose the ability when they get destroyed. Could be the bonus once you get three or four stars experience.

Would be nice to see something like this in the next SC or update / scenario-disk

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Liam:

From what I understand before Barbarossa Malta was under siege, so I do not see it serving much use as a base to attack supply. I've already suggested Bombers have a duel role in interdicting supplies but that was obviously never taken seriously.

Very true.

Even,

To the extent that - during daylight hours,

The paltry submarine force

Had to remain submerged

During daylight hours

Or it woulda been smashed to smithereens.

Malta "effect" just was NOT much of an effect

UNTIL, oh, 'round about

Spring of 1942 when

"Malta Strike Force"

WAS finally able to interdict

Enough supplies to "turn the tide"

Against the Desert Fox in North Africa.

I do like the idea, however,

That Malta Effect is primarily based on

The size of the unit,

IE, if it has been diminished,

Whether that be ground or air,

(... yep, I would have this difference

for unit type - in HvsH games, since

Solo-AI doesn't KNOW, or care, which is

more likely to inflict the most damage

on convoys)

AND, additionally,

On the size of the port and the little

Island enclave itself.

IOW, you start at, say, 10% "effectiveness"

And that would be reduced,

Proportionally,

Depending on the COMBINED "value/effect"

Of unit AND resource. :cool:

[... all of this would be a pain

in the keister... in a board game, but,

computer capability can and should allow

MORE intricate combinations and "un-seen"

calculation - a simple "pop-up" with

brief explantion of results should be

sufficient - same kind of thing you might

use for convoy attack results, or, strat

bombing success, or lack thereof]

[Guest Mike]

I did once write a script that required a ship and/or a/c to be based at Malta in order for there to be any Malta effect at all.

Edit - found it here

It was, of course, the ships and submarines from Malta that did the most damage historically, not the a/c.

[ February 13, 2007, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]