The African and MidEast Loops

[SeaMonkey]

OK guys, I'm sorry, the ability to transport a bunch of troops and ships around the Cape and attack Cairo/Suez area is just ludicrous.

Notice I didn't say impossible, but in such strength as Terif did, probably close to it.

First of all Ertrea(Italian owned), French Somali, and Ethiopia(Italian) all sit at the entrance of the Red Sea. Can't imagine an invasion force passing by unnoticed.

Secondly, any type of patrol vessel, not to mention civilian aircraft, could easily monitor the approaches to Cairo and the Suez.

Thirdly, how in the hell does a force get through an enemy naval taskforce stationed on the Red Sea loop arrows and into the Med.

Pure Crap!

I propose the Atlantic Loop arrows be broken into three sets. One set, one arrow only, for an amphib unit to land one land unit into the Cairo area after the Allies have lost Egypt. This simulates a possible landing at the Horn and the traversing to the Cairo area by land route.

The Red Sea should be blocked with any Naval TF, excepting transport or amphibs, to enemy movement when stationed on the loop arrows.

Next set, 4 arrows for the movement of Allies into the Egyptian theater as it is now, through the Red Sea when it remains in Allied control.

Last set, ? arrows for the loop to the Persian Gulf for subsequent landings in Basra, Kuwait, and the Saudi Arabian area. This is another option for the Allies to pursue a strategy into the MidEast theater.

[Blashy]

Lets make it simple.

If you have Four warships: CA, BV or CV on EACH arrow and next to them. Then you can't loop.

The canal is so small that you could block it just by sinking ships! 4 Ships could have easily made a blockade.

I do agree that as is it opens up the game, but this is a game based on history and had the Suez canal fallen under Axis control it could have been blocked.

[Guest Mike]

Italian control of Ethiopia is irrelevant - they had no naval forces there worth speaking of and no ability to do anything about allied naval movement past it.

I'm not sure what "monitoring" is supposed to mean in this context - lots of things can be "monitored as in seen happen "in real life" that aren't seen in SC2.

[Hubert Cater]

I just took a look at the naval loop scripts and it allows for arrivals at the port of Alexandria. If I change this secondary #FINISH_POSITION to also lie within the Suez (similar to the first #FINISH_POSITION listed) it would then only allow naval unit arrivals within the Suez canal and not inside the Mediterranean... would this be an acceptable compromise?

[Blashy]

Can it be blockaded?

Could the Axis use 4 warships to effectively negate the arrival?

4 ships could have made a successfull blockad. The Suez is very small, you could even have sunked 3-4 big container ships and effectively blocked the canal.

[SeaMonkey]

SO, what do you mean irrelevant? That is enemy controlled area, along with Ertrea and after the French fall, Somali also.

The proximity of naval units is what is irrelevant. Eyes...SO....Eyes, that report on the enemy, in this case Allied, movements. No chance for a surprise invasion. Crap! Do you have any idea how the subterranean structural formations of the Red Sea limit navigation, very dangerous for large naval vessels. The southern entrance is very narrow, easily mined.

Simply (I like Blashy's philosophy) it is next to impossible for a sneak attack especially by a large force.

My position is that it could be possible to put a small force ashore for a land excursion from Somali. It wouldn't be a surprise.

Hubert, one SC naval unit, simulating a task force, could most likely block the Red Sea, in conjuction with mines.

If SC naval units are multiple vessels, then at a minimum, 2 units occupying the Red Sea loop arrows should shut it down. No possible deployment to the Med is a start.

Blashy, nevermind about the Suez, you've got to traverse the Red Sea to get there first. Examine the geography of this area. Put an AF or Bomber or both in the Cairo area, nothing is going to come up the Red Sea without being destroyed.

I'm all for compromises, but large scale military operations in this area after the Allies have been vanquished seems awfully farfetched.

[Blashy]

We are on the same page SeaMonkey.

Invasion via Suez once under enemy controlled is simply not possible if the enemy protects it.

I'll agree with 2 warships ON the arrows and not 4 but an AF should be placed on Cairo as well.

It covers your point about air patrols spotting enemy ships and they could easily attack them as well.

Sound good?

[JerseyJohn]

As always, an interesting topic, SeaMonkey.

In regard to the actual war, I agree with Stalin's Organist, unless things were concluded very quickly Italian East Africa was virtually doomed. I suspect that was part of the reason Mussolini took so long to DOW on Britain and France; he thought the war would be over very, very soon after Italy's entry.

But, on principle, I think your point is valid. The game should be played as though Italy had interdicting power into the straights -- but again, historically, it didn't.

-- Despite being doomed logistically, cut off from further supply, the Italians put up a hard fight, especially considering they were mainly a glorified police force.

To Churchill's outrage, that theater saw the only successfull Italian invasion of a British possession, capturing British Somalailand, I'm not sure of the details, but I remember reading that Churchill was very upset over this.

[Guest Mike]

There's an article on the Eritrean and Ethiopian campaigns on Wiki but the forum doesn't like the URL so you'll have to look it up yuorself sorry

[SeaMonkey]

I understand the historical scenario, but that is not what this discussion is about. Its about a "what if" the Axis(largely the Germans) took control of the Suez Canal, Egypt, and ultimately the spread of their influence throughout the Middle East and further south towards the Horn.

Its about the geographical limitations of a full scale offensive the size of DDay and the SC2 game mechanics of allowing it and supporting it.

I really wouldn't have a problem with it if it was more in line with the questionable circumstances of an Axis invasion of the USA. But because of the Loop mechanics the invasion force does not have to travel through possible interdicting enemy forces.

The whole area from the Atlantic loop arrows to the Med. is a free ride for the Allied invasion force. Think about how far that is and the extent of the historical German submarine activities through this free ride zone.

And on top of all of that, the invasion force arrives in complete surprise through the restricted waters of the Red Sea for an assault on Egypt, frontally and on the flank.

Sorry, I have a pretty vivid imagination, but this is a bit of a stretch.

[Jollyguy]

Looking at a map of the Red Sea, IMO the Rdd Sea arrows should have little effect on the solution. IMO Allied capital ships should be able enter the area as the vanguard of an invasion force regardless, and fight it out, with transports following, regardless of the two arrows being covered.

However, it is inconsistent with other narrow spits of land in the game, like in Denmark, and the Black Sea, and Sicily/Boot of Italy, that controlling the hex after a land unit passed by, or positioning a blocking ship/unit that has to be destroyed first, blocks access, but not in this situation. I.e., to get into the Baltic an Allied player must first land a corp to open up the passage, then his navy can pour through and battle with the Kriegsmarine.

So, I like the expanding gameplay option of the reverse Suez Loop strategy, but it should be consistent. So, a Red Sea naval battle should be an option, and perhaps if the Axis player gets sloppy and doesn't garrison the Suez with a unit, then the Allied player could also land a unit there, followed by the rest of his invasion force, or even land units on both sides of the canal in an attempt to sieze control. Afterall, keep in mind that a British/French did this exact that thing in 1956, in conjunction with Israel.

Bob

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey,

Glad you clarified that, I missed part of the idea when I wrote my earlier post.

But the odd part is Hitler and his general staff had a lot of information on the Allied naval movements for Operation Torch, and the Invasion of Sicily. The distances from Germany to North Africa and Sicily is much shorter than it would have been to the Middle East, yet there wasn't very much they were able to do to immediately counter the landings. If Torch had moved more vigorously on Tunis in the early stages it might even have cut off the massive reinforcements of von Arnim.

But you do make an interesting point, that there would have been so much transit time involved in a round Africa voyage that, surely, the Axis could have done a great deal to prepare for it's landing.

Also, considering how difficult it was logistically support the Torch operation, a Middle East landing, being thousands of miles farther from the supply source, would have been both, more difficult, and necessarily, much smaller, with a longer wait for additional units to be landed.

All of which makes this a much more significant issue than I at first realized.

[Blashy]

And lets not forget what I said, you could sink 2-3 ships in the canal and effectively block it.

Add an air squadron and two warships guarding it.

I just don't see it being successfull. Along with SeaMonkey's more detailed information of the logistics involved.

The Axis did not do anything for Operation Torch because the Med was under Allied control. If the Suez was under Axis control, they could block it.

[SeaMonkey]

Really, the last thing I wanted to accomplish here was the diminishing of strategic possibilities.

I want the game as full of variables without undue burden on players or a clunky interface, sans micromanagement.

That is why I would like to see the Persian Gulf open to an invasion route, we have the convoy.

I still believe the Allies should be able to mount a raid into the Red Sea/Suez area, especially if the Axis are neglectful of garrisoning forces.

It shouldn't be "large scale" and by no means get an automatic deployment into the Med(past the Suez).

If the Axis are diligent with their deployments, as Blashy has suggested, then the Red Sea approach should be potentially blocked.

These modifications would represent the most realistic considerations of what could be achieved during this era.

It serves the purpose of further extending the Axis resources if the player chooses and allows for varied Allied operational choices, all within the context of real life.

[Terif]

...before the Suez loop gets short sighted changed and crippled :

If the map would be larger and extended to the south, I would agree that units should only appear south of Suez, then they could build up there and like normal and in history possible open the second front from there.

But as long as this is not the case, it is both much better for gameplay as well as more realistic that Allies can enter the med via Suez.

If it is changed and 2-4 units can block the entrance, THEN I would call it unrealistic (and gamey ). This would only lead to Axis simply putting always those few units there and invasion is impossible.

In reality Allies would have marched via land from southern Egypt supported by their fleet from the red sea. And nobody can tell me that like in the game - that here obviously is the trigger for this discussion - a superior force of 10 battleships/cruiser groups and 4 carrier groups could not immeditately free the way and sink only 2-4 enemy combat ship groups without problems. At Suez it may take some weeks to clear the canal from wracks/mines etc. but game turns in SC2 are weeks/months.

For SC2 the second destination point at Alexandria is simply necessary and within the current system also more realistic than reducing it to Cairo - otherwise Middle east is no option any more for Allies and a very interesting option would be taken away.

P.S.: with only a handful units Allies can´t invade even if Suez is only defended by 2 land units (Capital entrenchment 6), they need already a pretty strong task force unless Axis didn´t leave it empty.

[Liam]

This is true but the Axis should get warning, they'd have spies and spotters ! a percentage chance at spotting??? possible???

Originally posted by Terif:

...before the Suez loop gets short sighted changed and crippled :

If the map would be larger and extended to the south, I would agree that units should only appear south of Suez, then they could build up there and like normal and in history possible open the second front from there.

But as long as this is not the case, it is both much better for gameplay as well as more realistic that Allies can enter the med via Suez.

If it is changed and 2-4 units can block the entrance, THEN I would call it unrealistic (and gamey ). This would only lead to Axis simply putting always those few units there and invasion is impossible.

In reality Allies would have marched via land from southern Egypt supported by their fleet from the red sea. And nobody can tell me that like in the game - that here obviously is the trigger for this discussion - a superior force of 10 battleships/cruiser groups and 4 carrier groups could not immeditately free the way and sink only 2-4 enemy combat ship groups without problems. At Suez it may take some weeks to clear the canal from wracks/mines etc. but game turns in SC2 are weeks/months.

For SC2 the second destination point at Alexandria is simply necessary and within the current system also more realistic than reducing it to Cairo - otherwise Middle east is no option any more for Allies and a very interesting option would be taken away.

P.S.: with only a handful units Allies can´t invade even if Suez is only defended by 2 land units (Capital entrenchment 6), they need already a pretty strong task force unless Axis didn´t leave it empty.

[Terif]

Warnings - yep, but this is the same as with any other invasion since the system got changed so amphibs can move and land immeditately.

You nowhere have a forwarning despite in reality those invasions would have most probably also been spotted. In this aspect the SC1 system was certainly the better one where transports had to wait one turn with invasion at the coast .

However - if you get no warning anywhere else, why should you for all things get it at Suez ? At the entrance that already can be defended the most easily so if you know it in advance, Allies would only go this way if they had already won the game since otherwise they couldnt risk their forces there - don´t forget: This is a way without return since if invasion fails, every unit is stuck and lost there, so Axis have a huge incentive to move enough forces there to block and kill any invasion, which if they would get a message about incoming invasion would be more than possible.

Anywhere else you can cancel invasion if you see the enemy is too strong. Not possible at Suez with only 2 return arrows that here can in deed be turned into a death trap. So theoretically/more historic may be a forwarning, but for gameplay it would again be very bad and render the Suez option useless for Allies

[Blashy]

Terif, you forget the unrealistic part of the size of this force passing in the Suez, even the Red Sea would be problematic and very time consuming and if a force of ANY size were to try and retake the Canal, the Axis would have plenty of time to mount a defense, even send troops from the mainland BEFORE the taskforce arrived.

The second destination point at Alexandria should definitely be removed, you don't POP miles away, I don't recall teleportation in WW2. You have to make your way and if that way is blocked, forget about it.

This is why I felt my initial recomendation of four "war vessels" was good. Although SeaMonkey makes a good point about an AF being necessary as well.

That could entice UK to try and sink the Italian navy in its ports to prevent this blockade in the futur.

I know this opens up the game, but what are we playing here? A WW2 game or just a game that looks like the ETO...

[hellraiser]

Hmmm both sides seem to have valid arguments about this issue.

IMHO, I would leave the Med option open for the Allies but only allow the transports either to land the turn they arrive or wait for the next turn. Popping near Alexandria and sailing to Tobruk for example, is not right. I mean you land and fight, you don't start scouting for empty cities in an 100% hostile sea.

Why should be this option left open? Because, in the first place, as Yoda said, it cannot be accomplished by a small or even 'normal' task force if Axis keep some garrisons. It requiers a huge effort thus providing some sense of comfort for the the axis in other places, like France for example. We have to remember that the key cities are Berlin, Munich and Rome which are not directly threatened as an invasion of France do.

African theater is marginal, important but still marginal - losing Africa doesn't mean the end for Axis by any means. In 1.04, as Yoda demonstrated it in our games, if Allies really want Africa, they will get it because if the Axis player defends it heavily, he does it at the expense of the russian campaign - these kind of side actions like an allied med campaign aim to force the Axis player to react thus Russia can have the desired breather to regroup and crush axis from the east. For Axis, the main problem is Russia - if Russia is beaten, the rest is just a walk in the park, Africa or no Africa.

Obviously, one of the allied player's aim is to force Axis into a war of attrition, wasting his cash on operating, rebasing, and fighting irrelevant battles. If a war of attrition is achieved, the Axis has already lost.

[Blashy]

But Hellraiser... any task foce could easily be blockaded by 4 ships and 1 AF.

The logistics of entering that area are so difficult that only 1-2 ships could arrive at a time and they would be pounded by enemy ships and airfleets, blocked by sunk ships and mines. Oh and how about gun batteries on the shores. Have a corps unit represent gun batteries.

You talk about resources, 3 ships and 1 AF ARE resources. If they are not there, they are most likely in the Atlantic (if Axis has Gibraltar and the MED) and the AF is fighting somewhere else.

There is a cost for the Axis but the end result is much more realistic than thinking a HUGE task force could mount an offensive since they would have to trickle in and be easily picked off.

3 war vessels on both arrows and another in Cairo port, 1 AF and 1 Corps on Cairo and the tile south east of Cairo and you prevent the loop.

Now lets see the Italians keep their Navy alive with the Allied player knowing it could be used for a blockade... makes for some interesting gameplay at the start of the game.

[hellraiser]

Blashy, as I was saying, you have a solid point of view as well.

What we have to do here is try to find things that keep the balance or if something is not balanced, adjust it.

The only other option for the western allies in the Med is Casablanca. But with Gibraltar Axis held, you land in Casablanca, most likely take it along with Tangiers and remain there for eternity.

The distance to Algiers would hamper supply so badly that only a handful of Axis' forces can defend the area.

Another option is in the east for Russia - DOW iran/iraq if you're lucky and Axis DOW on Syria or diplo in Iraq were not succesful in bringing in Iraq. If Axis entrench in the iranian mountains bordering Russia, you can kiss mid east good bye as allies. Ok, you can DOW Turkey but the risk of losing the game is way too high this way.

So, not allowing Suez invasion, kinda secures an entire Axis' flank, like in SC1.

Indeed transports popping near Alexandria is kinda gay but we need to see if this questionable strategy helps or breaks the game. TBH, I don't like it either as is quite far fetched, in RL terms. But I am not sure if removing this option, adds to the playbalance.

Let's just gather some more thoughts on this issue - I would like some more players to post their opinions as well.

To me, v 1.04 is really playable H2H, Suez or no Suez. Let's just not rush something that could be changed in the next patch, without testing it properly first. Maybe there is a counterstrategy to this, yet to be revealed.

[Terif]

Blashy, you could perhaps the Suez canal itself block in reality, but not the Red Sea south of it - it is an ocean with many, many miles of water, even if it looks pretty small in SC2 .

SC2 at all is no historical simulation and when Allies invade somewhere with 28 vessels (and with such a force they can take any landing site of their choosing in SC2) , then for WW2 standards this would be unhistoric everywhere, not only at Suez.

BTW: To change it so Axis could block Suez only with exactly 3 vessels +1 AF, would need a major change in the script system first as far as I can see (if Alexandria would be removed as second landing site, then 1-2 units would be more than enough to block Allies). And before Hubert should do that, I would prefer if simply the map would be extended some hexes to the south so Allies have some space to place their units .

But as long as the map stays the same, to place the units near Alexandria as a second location is the best abstraction to simulate the possibility of an allied attack to liberate Egypt from the south.

In short:

As it is, it is IMHO both more realistic as well as much better for gameplay. Only if the map gets expanded I would change it .

Edit:

And as Hellraiser said: If you close the entrance via Suez, then Axis have no open flank there and are secure. Takes away a very interesting option which is totally unnecessary since it doesn´t improve historical accurracy...in contrary .

[ October 27, 2006, 05:42 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[Blashy]

Scripting to block it should be simple enough, Hubert can correct me if I'm wrong.

But would you contend that 3 warships, 1AF and 1 corps should be enough to cause a "block" ?

It can't remain as is, that is simply too far fetched. A blockade has to be possible.

The Axis end up having to expend resourcs that could be used somewhere else.

[Terif]

Sorry, here I certainly do not contend .

The mere image that Axis simply blockades any allied task force and be it 10 times larger with those few units seems to me totally unrealistic if not to say ridiculous in reality and for SC2 gameplay this is only stomach-churning for me .

[Edwin P.]

I would like to see it left as is for it opens up many options for the Allied player and makes the game less predictable.

That said - expanding the map futher south would allow the UK to invade Ethiopia, allow for Axis warining of the Invasion if it managed to maintain Italian troops in the Horn of Africa, and show the Vichy French Port of Dakar in West Africa.

As for realism, for staging such a large invasion, my guess is that the Allied troops would first mass in Kenya and not sail directly to the Red Sea from the UK via the Horn of Africa.