RE: Micro landings. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I



Message

Markiss -> RE: Micro landings. (12/12/2019 2:56:00 PM)

Thanks for the consideration Bill, the responsiveness of the developers is one of the things that makes this game series great.

And of course I moved the unit, as I did not expect this sort of tactic from the AI. Again, it happening once is not game breaking, just annoying. But if it happens over and over, it could be game deciding, which I think would be wrong.

I am just trying to stop this game from becoming War in Europe, where especially as Axis, how you handle the inevitable early micro landings is absolutely game deciding. If you don't move German forces into Italy in early 1940, Italy will surrender by mid-1940. And if you do move in German forces, and also cover the German North Sea coast against landings, you no longer have enough forces left to take France, which is exactly where my current game is at. It is August 1940, and the Axis are already finished as a direct result of micro landings, actual and threatened. It really shouldn't end like that, as don't think that happening was even the remotest historical possibility. Yet, in this game, it will happen every time unless I can think of some way to deal with it.



Taxman66 -> RE: Micro landings. (12/12/2019 5:55:23 PM)

As for naval units land spotting:
When did they start putting Sea Planes on Capital ships?
Or rather, if Dreadnaughts have them in this time period maybe they should get land vision but no other ships.



Markiss -> RE: Micro landings. (12/12/2019 6:52:04 PM)

I considered this, but the planes on these ships are not built for strategic recon. They are short-range sea planes with very unreliable methods of launch and retrieval.

The people who designed these ships envisioned a grand fleet action that would decide the war. As the fleets approached each other, the ships that carried planes would launch them for the purpose of hovering over the target ship and calling back precise gunnery adjustments based upon the fall of shot observed by the plane.

These planes were never intended to fly over the horizon, much less deep into enemy territory recording troop locations. And they really were one-use, the chances of actually recovering one in all but the calmest weather were low.

So I do not believe that these planes really figure into the equation. They are really part of the gunnery system for the ships they are on.



shri -> RE: Micro landings. (12/13/2019 4:01:47 AM)

Wishlist:
Can we limit the total number of expeditionary corps at-least?
I am quite sure historically all the minors + Russia + AH + Italy did not have the capabilities to launch such expeditions.

Only Germany, France and of-course UK could.

So, maybe they should launch but maybe the cost to equip can be substantially increased to decrease gamey tactics to cripple the already poor Ottomans.
Historically, the Ottomans surrendered well after Russia and even forced the British to surrender at Kut under von der Goltz's leadership.



FOARP -> RE: Micro landings. (12/27/2019 10:20:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

As for naval units land spotting:
When did they start putting Sea Planes on Capital ships?
Or rather, if Dreadnaughts have them in this time period maybe they should get land vision but no other ships.


I don't think any of the warships of this era had spotter-planes. There were float-plane-carriers, and eventually aircraft carriers, but dreadnoughts did not carry aircraft.



Benedict151 -> RE: Micro landings. (1/8/2020 2:40:16 PM)

Actually dreadnoughts did carry planes later in the war... admittedly they were a 'one shot weapon' in that the plane could be launched (via a flying off platform mounted on one of the turrets) but not recovered (the pilot would have to ditch next to a friendly ship and be picked up!) so were of limited use... but it does give a battlefleet a little more recon ability.

Sorry, I have a 'thing' about WW1 naval warfare.

regards
Ben



Tanaka -> RE: Micro landings. (1/2/2021 7:44:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

Boys, what kind of strategists are you? [8D]

I'm talking about strategical impact to the supply and income situation in the whole Middle East. While the income isn't much of an issue (since the production of cities is limited to 6 now), the supply surely is. A combined operation lead by a single det. leads to the drop of supply by 2 points. Your opponent will know where your HQ is located, and guess what will be the target for his strat. bombers or shore bombardements.

And how many det.s do you need to prevent a single det. from invading? Now that's a cost-benefit ratio! You also can't just ignore any landings, with all those nice NM-Objectives in the second row. I'd prefer to research trenches with the Ottos instead of buying all the available det.s just for garrison purposes for the rest of the game, sadly I'm forced to do so, in PbEM at least.


Bringing this thread back after experiencing this in my current game. I completely agree with Sugar. If the only choice for Ottomans is to buy every detachment available to defend against naval invasions then where is the strategy of choice if you are railroaded into this being your only option?



Tanaka -> RE: Micro landings. (1/2/2021 7:55:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HvS

To me it appears the easiest consensus is to do the same thing to detachments as to garrisons in WaW: do not allow them to do amphib landings.
This should solve the worst problems.. and if a player decides to let a corps drop in the Levante, he has to pay the full price.



Agreed! This seems the best solution!



OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Micro landings. (1/2/2021 11:15:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: HvS

To me it appears the easiest consensus is to do the same thing to detachments as to garrisons in WaW: do not allow them to do amphib landings.
This should solve the worst problems.. and if a player decides to let a corps drop in the Levante, he has to pay the full price.



Agreed! This seems the best solution!



Tanaka, this is on the whole what you have experienced in our current match. I have used mostly CORPS and MARINES,with a few detachments. With FoW on, you may not have realized this, and thought that I wantonly threw detachments all over your coast. Like I have said before, I generally don't like to use detachments in that way except in certain circumstances, as the following will illustrate:

Operation Goathead Soup Phase 1: (was written in my notebook when planning this haha)

1) I AVed an Italian CORP through that raging sea battle in the Adriatic to take Split and deny you a port.

2) A French MARINE AVed and took Smyrna, severely damaging the Ottoman BB in port. Smyrna had been under aerial surveillance for quite a long time and saw that it was garrisoned through most of the war..till just before this operation was launched. The French marine had been stationed on Rhodes since Italy got in the war.

3) A British MARINE AVed at Chanak to close the Dardanelles and stop any interference by CP vessels in the Sea of Marmara.

Operation Goathead Soup Phase 2: (next 3 turns)

4) A British DETACHMENT is AVed near Alexandretta..taking the town. Intention is to cut the Levant RR next turn.

5) A French CAVALRY unit is transported to Smyrna. The intention is to link with Chanak or disrupt the Ottomans lines of communication.

6) A Russian MARINE is AVed to Zondalak, taking the port and damaging the Ottoman DD there. This one was tricky, having to be escorted by the Russian Navy because of an Ottoman sub and possible other ships.

7) A British DETACHMENT is AVed to the south Anatolian coast to cut the RR. It hunkers down and entrenches. (third turn).

8) A Russian CORP is transported to Zongalak to secure the town..the Russian Marine moves inland to capture the mine and interdict the RR near Ankara.

So, this was the wave of sea landings you suffered Tanaka composing a total of the following:

1 CORP (IT)
1 CORP (RU)
1 CAVALRY (FR)
1 MARINE (UK)
1 MARINE (FR)
1 MARINE (RU)
1 DETACHMENT (UK)
1 DETACHMENT (UK)
1 MARINE (IT) in reserve at a undisclosed location :)

I'm illustrating this to show that we need to think carefully about changing the current mechanic. I could of not used the detachments..but the effects on the Sultan's domains would still be pretty severe. To Amphib and transport these units was very expensive. I personally think we could do away with allowing detachments to be able to move amphibiously, but then again, some could argue a legitimate reason why detachments should continue to be able to use this function.

Cheers

Edit: We could make HvS's suggestion a house rule in any future matches. [8D]



Tanaka -> RE: Micro landings. (1/3/2021 3:06:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: HvS

To me it appears the easiest consensus is to do the same thing to detachments as to garrisons in WaW: do not allow them to do amphib landings.
This should solve the worst problems.. and if a player decides to let a corps drop in the Levante, he has to pay the full price.



Agreed! This seems the best solution!



Tanaka, this is on the whole what you have experienced in our current match. I have used mostly CORPS and MARINES,with a few detachments. With FoW on, you may not have realized this, and thought that I wantonly threw detachments all over your coast. Like I have said before, I generally don't like to use detachments in that way except in certain circumstances, as the following will illustrate:

Operation Goathead Soup Phase 1: (was written in my notebook when planning this haha)

1) I AVed an Italian CORP through that raging sea battle in the Adriatic to take Split and deny you a port.

2) A French MARINE AVed and took Smyrna, severely damaging the Ottoman BB in port. Smyrna had been under aerial surveillance for quite a long time and saw that it was garrisoned through most of the war..till just before this operation was launched. The French marine had been stationed on Rhodes since Italy got in the war.

3) A British MARINE AVed at Chanak to close the Dardanelles and stop any interference by CP vessels in the Sea of Marmara.

Operation Goathead Soup Phase 2: (next 3 turns)

4) A British DETACHMENT is AVed near Alexandretta..taking the town. Intention is to cut the Levant RR next turn.

5) A French CAVALRY unit is transported to Smyrna. The intention is to link with Chanak or disrupt the Ottomans lines of communication.

6) A Russian MARINE is AVed to Zondalak, taking the port and damaging the Ottoman DD there. This one was tricky, having to be escorted by the Russian Navy because of an Ottoman sub and possible other ships.

7) A British DETACHMENT is AVed to the south Anatolian coast to cut the RR. It hunkers down and entrenches. (third turn).

8) A Russian CORP is transported to Zongalak to secure the town..the Russian Marine moves inland to capture the mine and interdict the RR near Ankara.

So, this was the wave of sea landings you suffered Tanaka composing a total of the following:

1 CORP (IT)
1 CORP (RU)
1 CAVALRY (FR)
1 MARINE (UK)
1 MARINE (FR)
1 MARINE (RU)
1 DETACHMENT (UK)
1 DETACHMENT (UK)
1 MARINE (IT) in reserve at a undisclosed location :)

I'm illustrating this to show that we need to think carefully about changing the current mechanic. I could of not used the detachments..but the effects on the Sultan's domains would still be pretty severe. To Amphib and transport these units was very expensive. I personally think we could do away with allowing detachments to be able to move amphibiously, but then again, some could argue a legitimate reason why detachments should continue to be able to use this function.

Cheers

Edit: We could make HvS's suggestion a house rule in any future matches. [8D]


But is 10 naval invasions really WW1 like? You have done nothing wrong and are as always are a very crafty opponent. It just feels weird in a WW1 game. And as Ottomans being railroaded into buying every detachment available to defend against it before choosing anything else kind of takes away from a strategy of choices. Taking away the ability to land garrisons would at least help a little with this. I don't really like house rules as I want to play with the engine at hand but if everyone seems to think this is the way it should be then I will defend against it next time...



OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Micro landings. (1/3/2021 5:59:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


But is 10 naval invasions really WW1 like? You have done nothing wrong and are as always are a very crafty opponent. It just feels weird in a WW1 game. And as Ottomans being railroaded into buying every detachment available to defend against it before choosing anything else kind of takes away from a strategy of choices. Taking away the ability to land garrisons would at least help a little with this. I don't really like house rules as I want to play with the engine at hand but if everyone seems to think this is the way it should be then I will defend against it next time...


This isn't 10 naval invasions. It's 1, and I will explain what I mean later in this post.

And yes, my multiple naval landings is weird I guess, but so is our WaW game where you playing Germany defeated France and didn't stop at the Pyrenees but continued on by taking out the pro-Axis state of Spain in 2 or 3 rounds then Gibralter. Was that really WW2 like? I even made an ingame joke about how cynical Hitler must be to stab Franco in the back like that.

Anyway, this thread is about micro-invasions with detachments, and I agree with you and the OP that that should be done away with just like the garrison micro-invasion exploit in WiE way back when.

This case with my landings all over the western Ottoman Empire's coast here in late 1916 was made to show another type of micro-landing..with Marines and Corps.

What I did was an Expensive project that might not bare fruit at all, or if not implemented right, could turn into out right disaster for me. Also, no one country of the Entente could do it alone, nor in a nilly-willy fashion. It had to happen at the Same Time....and only if conditions were right.

I had been surveillancing your coasts and ports of the Ottomans for sometime. and saw that you in fact had most of your rear area vulnerable spots covered from early 1915 onward. Its rolling towards 1917 and most of our fronts are in bloody gridlock on the West and East Fronts, quiet and frozen in the Alps, but getting a little wild in the Balkans (as usual lol) The different fronts the Entente has with the Ottomans, in the Caucasus, Sinai, and Kuwait are also pretty much deadlocked with some movement.

This is how it's been for sometime, when I hatched this scheme of doing a multi-faceted amphib approach against the Ottomans...the Sickman of Europe. This took lots of MMP's, Time,and Movements to set this up. It also required air recon with zeppelins and seaplane tenders at potential targets..with the object of taking Smyrna, Chanak, and Zondalak to breach the Dardanelles and isolate Istanbul from the rest of the Ottomans asiatic territories.

You had all the places targeted by me occupied by detachments or corps..and I was worried all my overflights would tip you off..then, for reasons known to you..they were empty..so all my Marines from disparate locations launched. This was one invasion, going after seperate targets, by relatively weak units like Marines in the vanguard. Even now, they are all separated with just weak links between them.

The reason I'm giving this example is to show that the Ottoman Empire is weak and over extended in this game, like it was historically. Taking away the amphib ability of detachments will help the imbalance that it creates towards the Turks..but the Ottoman Empire is what it is..frail, old, and ready to totter over!

One last thing..this fact about the Ottoman Empire's frail nature and my example of what the Entente can pull off against it in mid to late 1916 hammers home the importance of the Central Powers defeating Serbia EARLY, getting Bulgaria into the war, and thus linking it all together with the Ottomans. The rest of the CP can then send money and their own units down the railroad to help cover all the vulnerable holes and gaps in the Ottoman's hide.

Cheers




stockwellpete -> RE: Micro landings. (1/3/2021 8:56:23 AM)

The political consequences of a failed amphibious operation could be very high e.g. Gallipoli. What happens at the moment in the game when a "micro landing" is defeated? Is there any extra NM loss?



BillRunacre -> RE: Micro landings. (1/3/2021 3:56:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

The political consequences of a failed amphibious operation could be very high e.g. Gallipoli. What happens at the moment in the game when a "micro landing" is defeated? Is there any extra NM loss?


Not as such because the engine doesn't track whether a unit that is destroyed had landed amphibiously at any point in time.

However, there is the NM loss of losing the unit, coupled with the probability that the enemy will receive an NM bonus when they destroy it, if it is destroyed when in low supply.



Tanaka -> RE: Micro landings. (1/3/2021 9:38:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


But is 10 naval invasions really WW1 like? You have done nothing wrong and are as always are a very crafty opponent. It just feels weird in a WW1 game. And as Ottomans being railroaded into buying every detachment available to defend against it before choosing anything else kind of takes away from a strategy of choices. Taking away the ability to land garrisons would at least help a little with this. I don't really like house rules as I want to play with the engine at hand but if everyone seems to think this is the way it should be then I will defend against it next time...


This isn't 10 naval invasions. It's 1, and I will explain what I mean later in this post.

And yes, my multiple naval landings is weird I guess, but so is our WaW game where you playing Germany defeated France and didn't stop at the Pyrenees but continued on by taking out the pro-Axis state of Spain in 2 or 3 rounds then Gibralter. Was that really WW2 like? I even made an ingame joke about how cynical Hitler must be to stab Franco in the back like that.

Anyway, this thread is about micro-invasions with detachments, and I agree with you and the OP that that should be done away with just like the garrison micro-invasion exploit in WiE way back when.

This case with my landings all over the western Ottoman Empire's coast here in late 1916 was made to show another type of micro-landing..with Marines and Corps.

What I did was an Expensive project that might not bare fruit at all, or if not implemented right, could turn into out right disaster for me. Also, no one country of the Entente could do it alone, nor in a nilly-willy fashion. It had to happen at the Same Time....and only if conditions were right.

I had been surveillancing your coasts and ports of the Ottomans for sometime. and saw that you in fact had most of your rear area vulnerable spots covered from early 1915 onward. Its rolling towards 1917 and most of our fronts are in bloody gridlock on the West and East Fronts, quiet and frozen in the Alps, but getting a little wild in the Balkans (as usual lol) The different fronts the Entente has with the Ottomans, in the Caucasus, Sinai, and Kuwait are also pretty much deadlocked with some movement.

This is how it's been for sometime, when I hatched this scheme of doing a multi-faceted amphib approach against the Ottomans...the Sickman of Europe. This took lots of MMP's, Time,and Movements to set this up. It also required air recon with zeppelins and seaplane tenders at potential targets..with the object of taking Smyrna, Chanak, and Zondalak to breach the Dardanelles and isolate Istanbul from the rest of the Ottomans asiatic territories.

You had all the places targeted by me occupied by detachments or corps..and I was worried all my overflights would tip you off..then, for reasons known to you..they were empty..so all my Marines from disparate locations launched. This was one invasion, going after seperate targets, by relatively weak units like Marines in the vanguard. Even now, they are all separated with just weak links between them.

The reason I'm giving this example is to show that the Ottoman Empire is weak and over extended in this game, like it was historically. Taking away the amphib ability of detachments will help the imbalance that it creates towards the Turks..but the Ottoman Empire is what it is..frail, old, and ready to totter over!

One last thing..this fact about the Ottoman Empire's frail nature and my example of what the Entente can pull off against it in mid to late 1916 hammers home the importance of the Central Powers defeating Serbia EARLY, getting Bulgaria into the war, and thus linking it all together with the Ottomans. The rest of the CP can then send money and their own units down the railroad to help cover all the vulnerable holes and gaps in the Ottoman's hide.

Cheers




I really appreciate your detailed responses into how all this was pulled off. It sounds like we have no disagreement then? Simply no garrison landings. It is on me to focus more on buying as many detachments as possible to defend the enormous Ottoman coastline next time. If they are supposed to fall so easily maybe I am just being too hard on myself! It has been quite the fun game and I love our tit for tats!



Chernobyl -> RE: Micro landings. (1/4/2021 1:51:13 AM)

What do you feel are the most successful/important/viable locations to land to harrass the Ottomans?

Are there any locations you would consider landing at if the Ottomans have at least a strength 10 detachment ready there? Or is it only worth going if it's unoccupied

And what exactly is the effect of cutting the railroad? Do all the units in Palestine get less supply?



OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Micro landings. (1/4/2021 4:18:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


I really appreciate your detailed responses into how all this was pulled off. It sounds like we have no disagreement then? Simply no garrison landings. It is on me to focus more on buying as many detachments as possible to defend the enormous Ottoman coastline next time. If they are supposed to fall so easily maybe I am just being too hard on myself! It has been quite the fun game and I love our tit for tats!


I reluctantly agree that DETACHMENTS should not be able to be used amphibiously, with extreme prejudice. I agree to this only for game balance reasons concerning the Ottoman's situation at the beginning of the game till around mid 1915 or so when they or their allies can help them cover their coast lines and ports properly. (and maybe the best fix for that is to give the Ottomans GARRISON units at the beginning like the Russians have at various vulnerable locations).

What I do NOT like about a potential proscription of the amphibious use of DETACHMENTS is it denies someone like me who uses them in a responsible manner, like the example I cited earlier on this thread. But, alas, I have seen other players abuse their use in an exploitive way.

fyi Tanaka. In SC-WW1 The Entente has three kinds of infantry units...GARRISONS, DETACHMENTS, and CORPS. Garrisons here cannot be AVed, while the other two types can. I saw a few times where you were referring to garrisons when I think you meant Detachments. I just wrote this unless anyone else got confused, by I knew what you meant :)

also btw, I'm an ass and thigh man but will take tits and tats if that's all that's made available [sm=00000622.gif]



OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Micro landings. (1/4/2021 4:39:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

What do you feel are the most successful/important/viable locations to land to harrass the Ottomans?

Are there any locations you would consider landing at if the Ottomans have at least a strength 10 detachment ready there? Or is it only worth going if it's unoccupied

And what exactly is the effect of cutting the railroad? Do all the units in Palestine get less supply?


Chanak and Zondulak if you can get away with it.

The mines at Zondulak are critical to the Ottomans...also, just down the road from that port is Ankara, where there's the Industrial resource and an important RR node.

Chanak is also a prime target because from there the Entente can avoid taking the Gallipoli peninsula head on but open the straits near there for them and close it to the Ottoman Navy. Chanak isn't a port though so its a one way trip for anyone who has landed there other than Marines..

Other important Ottoman targets for the Entente via Amphibious landings:
Smyrna. A jewel of a port for the Entente.
Jerusalem. Can be reached from the sea in one round if not occupied.
Trabazon. Anyone that doesn't have at least a detachment on it deserves to lose it :)
Aqaba. Triggers Lawrence HQ and screws the Turkish left flank in Sinai.
Yanbo. Causes consternation but is an expensive extravagance :)

"Supply effects if Anatolian RR is cut?"..not sure. Ive always covered my rear there first. Perhaps a hotseat test or someone else's example would tell us. I do know it stops the operation of units to and fro..thats why I did it in my match against Tanaka..to stop any of his considerable force of Turks in Sinai and the Levant from interfering with my work up in north western Anatolia haha.



Tanaka -> RE: Micro landings. (1/4/2021 5:33:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


I really appreciate your detailed responses into how all this was pulled off. It sounds like we have no disagreement then? Simply no garrison landings. It is on me to focus more on buying as many detachments as possible to defend the enormous Ottoman coastline next time. If they are supposed to fall so easily maybe I am just being too hard on myself! It has been quite the fun game and I love our tit for tats!


I reluctantly agree that DETACHMENTS should not be able to be used amphibiously, with extreme prejudice. I agree to this only for game balance reasons concerning the Ottoman's situation at the beginning of the game till around mid 1915 or so when they or their allies can help them cover their coast lines and ports properly. (and maybe the best fix for that is to give the Ottomans GARRISON units at the beginning like the Russians have at various vulnerable locations).

What I do NOT like about a potential proscription of the amphibious use of DETACHMENTS is it denies someone like me who uses them in a responsible manner, like the example I cited earlier on this thread. But, alas, I have seen other players abuse their use in an exploitive way.

fyi Tanaka. In SC-WW1 The Entente has three kinds of infantry units...GARRISONS, DETACHMENTS, and CORPS. Garrisons here cannot be AVed, while the other two types can. I saw a few times where you were referring to garrisons when I think you meant Detachments. I just wrote this unless anyone else got confused, by I knew what you meant :)

also btw, I'm an ass and thigh man but will take tits and tats if that's all that's available [sm=00000622.gif]


Wait what? The Entente has garrisons but the CP do not? What what? Why is this? Well I am including garrisons and detachments in my same assessment. So apologies for the confusion as I have never played as Entente so I had no idea.

I should have known you were an ass man with all of those naval invasions from behind![sm=character0085.gif] [sm=00000030.gif]



Chernobyl -> RE: Micro landings. (1/4/2021 5:55:00 AM)

The Ottomans are most vulnerable early before Serbia surrenders and Bulgaria joins. Once they start getting convoy MPP and you can rail anything you like to Turkey, I think they are less vulnerable to being overwhelmed.

I don't know if the developers intended Jerusalem to be capturable in one turn via a naval landing.

One weird thing is the unit which amphibiously lands seems to get one hex of free movement regardless of terrain. It's like an airplane landing, it has one movement point and can walk up a mountain which normally requires 3

So even if I slightly edit the coast and put Jerusalem on a hill hex, any unit could still AV in and walk into Jerusalem



OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Micro landings. (1/4/2021 6:31:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

The Ottomans are most vulnerable early before Serbia surrenders and Bulgaria joins. Once they start getting convoy MPP and you can rail anything you like to Turkey, I think they are less vulnerable to being overwhelmed.

I don't know if the developers intended Jerusalem to be capturable in one turn via a naval landing.

One weird thing is the unit which amphibiously lands seems to get one hex of free movement regardless of terrain. It's like an airplane landing, it has one movement point and can walk up a mountain which normally requires 3

So even if I slightly edit the coast and put Jerusalem on a hill hex, any unit could still AV in and walk into Jerusalem


Yep..your right. Its an exploitive trick to take Jerusalem that way, even if the Entente unit dies. Its a little known secret (or exploit)..but I'm glad its out. If that landing and take down is tied to an Entente offensive trying to bust the Gaza Line then I think its ok, but I was a victim of such a move in a match long ago..and it was early game where there was no push by my opponent from Egypt. His unit died..and I lost forever that NM spot.

This is why maybe The Ottomans should get some GARRISON units like the Russians do..the Dev's even added 2 more Garrison units in a patch to the Russian pre-war deployment up in Russian Poland to thwart an exploit of German cavalry taking Brest-litovsk on the opening turn. That was a huge and needed fix!

Also, like you have been saying for a long time, and it applies to this thread...I'll repeat myself also: It's essential for the Central Powers to take out Serbia as soon as possible..and if thats not quite achievable because of circumstances, at least take NISH. That will open up the link to Bulgaria (if in the war) and the Ottoman Empire.

These fixes we are talking about pertain to the Ottomans extreme vulnerably in 1914-1915. That at least needs to be addressed I think.



OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Micro landings. (1/4/2021 6:42:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

I should have known you were an ass man with all of those naval invasions from behind![sm=character0085.gif] [sm=00000030.gif]



Thats what's great about these computer wargames..I get to roleplay a Rear Admiral virtually when reality is saying No!...... again. [;)][sm=scared0018.gif][:-]



Chernobyl -> RE: Micro landings. (1/7/2021 2:23:21 AM)

Regarding the importance of micro landings against Turkey, I will add my opinion:

Because of the importance of artillery, I believe you want to prioritize getting all your arty out and upgraded as early as possible, even for "poor" majors. One of the side-games is the race between the Ottomans and Italy to research buy and upgrade their artillery. Ottomans get 3 and Italians get 2 max, all must be purchased. Whoever gets these babies out first has a significant advantage, and by default the Ottomans make a bit more MPP and start getting it earlier than Italy.

I have found that in my games I have ottoman upgraded artillery arriving on the scene in late 1915. But this is HEAVILY dependent on how stressed the Ottomans are. If they have to pay for reinforcements and many detachments to guard shores, then those guns are significantly delayed and this is a significant win for the Entente. If the Ottomans are delayed (it's a big big economic investment and the Ottomans have limited funds) then the Italian guns might arrive on the scene before the Ottoman ones.

And I don't think anyone mentioned it but I think the value (and feasability) of doing all these landings depends very much on Ottoman isolation. Before Serbia surrenders and Bulgaria joins, the Ottomans are on their own, and it's far more possible to overstretch them. Both in MPPs and in units. Once a a Bulgarian army shows up in Egypt (or Austrian army, or just detachments from Europe or whatever you prefer) and Austria starts sending MPP every turn that is a significant relief for the Ottomans and the benefits of micro-landings go down. Ottoman isolation/weakness is one reason I prioritize killing Serbia off fast, ideally before 1915 starts.

I'm not an Entente player but as a Centrals player I would say that every MPP you force me to spend on Ottoman detachments delays me a lot in rushing Ottoman upgraded artillery and you really don't want to see a level 1 Ottoman artillery firing at you on the western front or italy in 1915 it's going to cause you to lose a NM city and some corps.

TLDR: Ottomans have trouble coming up with MPP to do the overpowered things in the game (artillery) so you want to maximize eco damage to them. You want to do this ideally while they are isolated so they have to spend on defense and the Germans/Austrians can't rail stuff down to help them.



OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Micro landings. (1/7/2021 3:06:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Regarding the importance of micro landings against Turkey, I will add my opinion:

Because of the importance of artillery, I believe you want to prioritize getting all your arty out and upgraded as early as possible, even for "poor" majors. One of the side-games is the race between the Ottomans and Italy to research buy and upgrade their artillery. Ottomans get 3 and Italians get 2 max, all must be purchased. Whoever gets these babies out first has a significant advantage, and by default the Ottomans make a bit more MPP and start getting it earlier than Italy.

I have found that in my games I have ottoman upgraded artillery arriving on the scene in late 1915. But this is HEAVILY dependent on how stressed the Ottomans are. If they have to pay for reinforcements and many detachments to guard shores, then those guns are significantly delayed and this is a significant win for the Entente. If the Ottomans are delayed (it's a big big economic investment and the Ottomans have limited funds) then the Italian guns might arrive on the scene before the Ottoman ones.

And I don't think anyone mentioned it but I think the value (and feasability) of doing all these landings depends very much on Ottoman isolation. Before Serbia surrenders and Bulgaria joins, the Ottomans are on their own, and it's far more possible to overstretch them. Both in MPPs and in units. Once a a Bulgarian army shows up in Egypt (or Austrian army, or just detachments from Europe or whatever you prefer) and Austria starts sending MPP every turn that is a significant relief for the Ottomans and the benefits of micro-landings go down. Ottoman isolation/weakness is one reason I prioritize killing Serbia off fast, ideally before 1915 starts.

I'm not an Entente player but as a Centrals player I would say that every MPP you force me to spend on Ottoman detachments delays me a lot in rushing Ottoman upgraded artillery and you really don't want to see a level 1 Ottoman artillery firing at you on the western front or italy in 1915 it's going to cause you to lose a NM city and some corps.

TLDR: Ottomans have trouble coming up with MPP to do the overpowered things in the game (artillery) so you want to maximize eco damage to them. You want to do this ideally while they are isolated so they have to spend on defense and the Germans/Austrians can't rail stuff down to help them.


You are absolutely right with these conclusions. As long as the Ottomans are isolated, and the Entente puts pressure on them early, then the Turks won't have spare MMP's to invest in artillery for example, unless they want to risk loosing significant ground early in the war.

But, as you always have emphasized, as have others...me included, taking down Serbia or at the very least, until that's achieved, taking Nish + getting Bulgaria into the war as soon as possible should be one of the highest priority for the Central Powers.

As a predominantly Entente player (at least for the last 3 or 4 months haha), I 've been acutely aware of this fact, and things don't go well for them if the Central Powers get linked up too early.



Tanaka -> RE: Micro landings. (1/7/2021 3:34:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Regarding the importance of micro landings against Turkey, I will add my opinion:

Because of the importance of artillery, I believe you want to prioritize getting all your arty out and upgraded as early as possible, even for "poor" majors. One of the side-games is the race between the Ottomans and Italy to research buy and upgrade their artillery. Ottomans get 3 and Italians get 2 max, all must be purchased. Whoever gets these babies out first has a significant advantage, and by default the Ottomans make a bit more MPP and start getting it earlier than Italy.

I have found that in my games I have ottoman upgraded artillery arriving on the scene in late 1915. But this is HEAVILY dependent on how stressed the Ottomans are. If they have to pay for reinforcements and many detachments to guard shores, then those guns are significantly delayed and this is a significant win for the Entente. If the Ottomans are delayed (it's a big big economic investment and the Ottomans have limited funds) then the Italian guns might arrive on the scene before the Ottoman ones.

And I don't think anyone mentioned it but I think the value (and feasability) of doing all these landings depends very much on Ottoman isolation. Before Serbia surrenders and Bulgaria joins, the Ottomans are on their own, and it's far more possible to overstretch them. Both in MPPs and in units. Once a a Bulgarian army shows up in Egypt (or Austrian army, or just detachments from Europe or whatever you prefer) and Austria starts sending MPP every turn that is a significant relief for the Ottomans and the benefits of micro-landings go down. Ottoman isolation/weakness is one reason I prioritize killing Serbia off fast, ideally before 1915 starts.

I'm not an Entente player but as a Centrals player I would say that every MPP you force me to spend on Ottoman detachments delays me a lot in rushing Ottoman upgraded artillery and you really don't want to see a level 1 Ottoman artillery firing at you on the western front or italy in 1915 it's going to cause you to lose a NM city and some corps.

TLDR: Ottomans have trouble coming up with MPP to do the overpowered things in the game (artillery) so you want to maximize eco damage to them. You want to do this ideally while they are isolated so they have to spend on defense and the Germans/Austrians can't rail stuff down to help them.


You are absolutely right with these conclusions. As long as the Ottomans are isolated, and the Entente puts pressure on them early, then the Turks won't have spare MMP's to invest in artillery for example, unless they want to risk loosing significant ground early in the war.

But, as you always have emphasized, as have others...me included, taking down Serbia or at the very least, until that's achieved, taking Nish + getting Bulgaria into the war as soon as possible should be one of the highest priority for the Central Powers.

As a predominantly Entente player (at least for the last 3 or 4 months haha), I 've been acutely aware of this fact, and things don't go well for them if the Central Powers get linked up too early.


Agree. And as someone who always pushes hard on Serbia I have no idea how you do that and as Ottomans try and buy every detachment to defend the entire coastline and any artillery at all at the same time...



OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Micro landings. (1/7/2021 3:45:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Regarding the importance of micro landings against Turkey, I will add my opinion:

Because of the importance of artillery, I believe you want to prioritize getting all your arty out and upgraded as early as possible, even for "poor" majors. One of the side-games is the race between the Ottomans and Italy to research buy and upgrade their artillery. Ottomans get 3 and Italians get 2 max, all must be purchased. Whoever gets these babies out first has a significant advantage, and by default the Ottomans make a bit more MPP and start getting it earlier than Italy.

I have found that in my games I have ottoman upgraded artillery arriving on the scene in late 1915. But this is HEAVILY dependent on how stressed the Ottomans are. If they have to pay for reinforcements and many detachments to guard shores, then those guns are significantly delayed and this is a significant win for the Entente. If the Ottomans are delayed (it's a big big economic investment and the Ottomans have limited funds) then the Italian guns might arrive on the scene before the Ottoman ones.

And I don't think anyone mentioned it but I think the value (and feasability) of doing all these landings depends very much on Ottoman isolation. Before Serbia surrenders and Bulgaria joins, the Ottomans are on their own, and it's far more possible to overstretch them. Both in MPPs and in units. Once a a Bulgarian army shows up in Egypt (or Austrian army, or just detachments from Europe or whatever you prefer) and Austria starts sending MPP every turn that is a significant relief for the Ottomans and the benefits of micro-landings go down. Ottoman isolation/weakness is one reason I prioritize killing Serbia off fast, ideally before 1915 starts.

I'm not an Entente player but as a Centrals player I would say that every MPP you force me to spend on Ottoman detachments delays me a lot in rushing Ottoman upgraded artillery and you really don't want to see a level 1 Ottoman artillery firing at you on the western front or italy in 1915 it's going to cause you to lose a NM city and some corps.

TLDR: Ottomans have trouble coming up with MPP to do the overpowered things in the game (artillery) so you want to maximize eco damage to them. You want to do this ideally while they are isolated so they have to spend on defense and the Germans/Austrians can't rail stuff down to help them.


You are absolutely right with these conclusions. As long as the Ottomans are isolated, and the Entente puts pressure on them early, then the Turks won't have spare MMP's to invest in artillery for example, unless they want to risk loosing significant ground early in the war.

But, as you always have emphasized, as have others...me included, taking down Serbia or at the very least, until that's achieved, taking Nish + getting Bulgaria into the war as soon as possible should be one of the highest priority for the Central Powers.

As a predominantly Entente player (at least for the last 3 or 4 months haha), I 've been acutely aware of this fact, and things don't go well for them if the Central Powers get linked up too early.


Agree. And as someone who always pushes hard on Serbia I have no idea how you do that and as Ottomans try and buy every detachment to defend the entire coastline and any artillery at all at the same time...


Yeah, Tanaka...its hard managing the Ottomans.

In our current match, with you on the verge of taking Nish, I had to jump and do those amphibious incursions plus pump mass MMP's into diplo with Rumania to try to again isolate the Turks. In conjunction with that I had to get the Russians, even though they are on their heels a bit in Poland, to assault and take Przemysl Fortress down in Galicia at all costs because the taking of that triggers the Romanians pro-Entente. All that was tied together because of the Extreme Danger that awaits Egypt and other fronts in the Middle East if German or other CP forces start showing up in that theater.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
7.570313