Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Caucasus front setup

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I >> Caucasus front setup Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Caucasus front setup - 1/9/2021 8:24:44 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
So I'm looking at what the Ottomans and Russians get in the Caucasus initially and I would like some opinions.

#1 Russian Mountain Troops
The Russians get 4 Mountain Corps in this area which makes them the #1 mountain troop army in the world by far (no one else seems to get any except through purchase and even then they can't build as many as Russia). What exactly is the rationale for labeling these corps "mountain" corps? As far as I can tell, the Russian troops in the Caucasus were just regular conscripts. Is there some historical basis for this? Or is there a gameplay balance idea behind it? Perhaps the Armenian corps could remain "mountain" troops for their local knowledge.

#2 Damaged Ottoman HQ
Is there a reason the Ottoman HQ starts at level 8 instead of 10? Historically the Ottomans attacked towards Kars pretty much immediately, with disastrous results. But I don't see a need to have lower initial supply for the Ottomans, who take a while to get this HQ into position anyhow. If anything it's the Von Sanders HQ which gets railed/shipped over that commands the units and it's at 10/10 strength; the Ottomans can't advance against entrenched Russian corps in any case even with this extra HQ (they may repeat the historical assault if they wish to commit suicide).

#3 No Ottoman NM Objective on Kars
If the Ottomans somehow manage to take Kars, they get no NM boost from this feat. The Russians lose 1000 NM and that's it. If this was the Ottoman primary objective in in the area (retake city lost to the Russians in the 1870s) then wouldn't it boost the Ottoman regime's legitimacy if they captured it?
Post #: 1
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/9/2021 9:10:43 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 3870
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

So I'm looking at what the Ottomans and Russians get in the Caucasus initially and I would like some opinions.

#1 Russian Mountain Troops
The Russians get 4 Mountain Corps in this area which makes them the #1 mountain troop army in the world by far (no one else seems to get any except through purchase and even then they can't build as many as Russia). What exactly is the rationale for labeling these corps "mountain" corps? As far as I can tell, the Russian troops in the Caucasus were just regular conscripts. Is there some historical basis for this? Or is there a gameplay balance idea behind it? Perhaps the Armenian corps could remain "mountain" troops for their local knowledge.

#2 Damaged Ottoman HQ
Is there a reason the Ottoman HQ starts at level 8 instead of 10? Historically the Ottomans attacked towards Kars pretty much immediately, with disastrous results. But I don't see a need to have lower initial supply for the Ottomans, who take a while to get this HQ into position anyhow. If anything it's the Von Sanders HQ which gets railed/shipped over that commands the units and it's at 10/10 strength; the Ottomans can't advance against entrenched Russian corps in any case even with this extra HQ (they may repeat the historical assault if they wish to commit suicide).

#3 No Ottoman NM Objective on Kars
If the Ottomans somehow manage to take Kars, they get no NM boost from this feat. The Russians lose 1000 NM and that's it. If this was the Ottoman primary objective in in the area (retake city lost to the Russians in the 1870s) then wouldn't it boost the Ottoman regime's legitimacy if they captured it?


Mountain Corps get a +1 bonus when attacking into, or defending, a mountain hex. Why Russia gets so many of them I do not know. As it is almost impossible to defend that front by Ottomans with regular troops.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 2
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/9/2021 9:49:30 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
almost impossible to defend that front by Ottomans with regular troops.


Hmm do you really have trouble defending white entrenched in the mountains before the artillery starts firing?

In a few games I have found I usually stop the Russians from advancing unless they elect to keep their spawned artillery in the Caucasus and then I eventually lose Erzurum. Those mountain corps definitely help the Russians but I don't think that bonus on its own is the backbreaker. It's more just about having artillery vs not having, followed by lack of supply/bad road system/no rail connection.

I actually can defend hexes pretty well with just Ottoman detachments, which I send in good supply to the Caucasus if I'm not counterattacking (which is the usual).

You do need to put 4 chits into Ottoman Trench Warfare tech to make sure you get better trenches fast.

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 3
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/9/2021 10:14:15 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 3870
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
almost impossible to defend that front by Ottomans with regular troops.


Hmm do you really have trouble defending white entrenched in the mountains before the artillery starts firing?

In a few games I have found I usually stop the Russians from advancing unless they elect to keep their spawned artillery in the Caucasus and then I eventually lose Erzurum. Those mountain corps definitely help the Russians but I don't think that bonus on its own is the backbreaker. It's more just about having artillery vs not having, followed by lack of supply/bad road system/no rail connection.

I actually can defend hexes pretty well with just Ottoman detachments, which I send in good supply to the Caucasus if I'm not counterattacking (which is the usual).

You do need to put 4 chits into Ottoman Trench Warfare tech to make sure you get better trenches fast.


Before artillery I do ok not so ok after the Russians bring artillery. And I have definitely learned trench warfare is a must first research pick. I now realize I have never put more than 1 chit into any one research pick.

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 1/9/2021 10:21:02 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 4
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/10/2021 7:02:51 AM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 754
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline
I think the rational for all the 'mountain troops' for Russia is that a lot of their conscripts in different regions of this vast empire were deployed (at first anyway) near thier home districts.

In this case, for Yudenich's Caucasian Army, it would be comprised in large part with Circassians, Ossetians, Armenians, Chechens, Dagestani and a whole other host of peoples indigenous to this region. Russian officers would be in charge of course.

I would say, that to outsiders, these peoples could be considered 'mountaineers'. These peoples would probably been more accustomed to warfare in regions like this or the Carpathians.

Anyway, it's possible this is what the devs intended here with that question, but even if it's something else, I believe my musings on this might be plausible too.

< Message edited by OldCrowBalthazor -- 1/10/2021 2:48:05 PM >

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 5
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/10/2021 9:57:25 AM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
If you read this short description of what happened on the Caucasus front in 1914-15 you will see that it was actually very quiet after the failed Ottoman attack at Sarakamish in January 1915 . . .

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/caucasus_front

There was no major Russian offensive until January 1916 because they had to keep transferring troops northwards to the Eastern Front. The Ottomans even had time to organise the Armenian Genocide in 1915 without Russian interference.

I actually think that mountain warfare in the game needs to be looked at again. I don't know anything about the geographical detail of the Caucasus front, but from the footage I have seen in various documentaries parts of it (e.g. around Sarakamish) seem less severe than the mountains on the Alpine front. Nevertheless, according to the short account in the link I have provided many thousands of soldiers on both sides froze to death there in 1914/15 and 1915/16. I do think that should be represented in the game using the same approach as typhus or mutinies where strength points are lost. Units in purely mountain hexes should suffer losses at least once in the winter months each year. I am not convinced that the Russians should have so many Mountain Corps either although there may be a case for them having one or two. Maybe the Ottomans should have one as well.

Two other things . . . the short account from the link also mentions Ottoman forts around Erzurum, which perhaps puts it into the "Trento category". An adjustment of artillery has been discussed elsewhere on this forum but I am not convinced that either side would have had many of their heavier guns on this front. Field artillery, of course but I question whether the Russians would have many heavy guns present. I may be wrong, of course.

< Message edited by stockwellpete -- 1/10/2021 10:03:04 AM >

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)
Post #: 6
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/11/2021 1:43:11 PM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline
//but I question whether the Russians would have many heavy guns present//

Russia started the war with the World's largest artillery park, though over half of it was in the various fortresses of Congress Poland, Lithuania etc. The problem with any game is, Russian forts do not collapse as they did IRL. The Germans overran the entire Russian fortress system with numerical inferiority with ease and offloaded these captured guns to their allies which helped them hold on till 1918.

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 7
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/11/2021 5:41:21 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
Here is a list of Russian artillery in WW1 . . .

https://ordnancesociety.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/wwi-russian-artillery.pdf


Were any of the heavier guns listed used on the Caucasian front in significant numbers? I doubt it myself. More likely they were used on the Galician front. The biggest Russian siege gun did not have many made during WW1 and there were technical problems with it . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152_mm_siege_gun_M1910

Their biggest howitzer was not very numerous either . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/305_mm_howitzer_M1915

(in reply to shri)
Post #: 8
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/13/2021 8:28:24 AM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
I am looking at Erzurum to see whether it should really be a fortified town. I have found this website "First World War, day by day", which has some interesting information . . .

1) "Erzurum Offensive (8 February, 1916)

Back now to the Caucasus, where General Yudenich has been waiting for the right moment to attempt to capture Erzurum. Let’s recap: Erzurum is protected by a system of forts, but they’re significantly undermanned and have only a quarter of the artillery that they were designed to host. Yudenich and his staff therefore believe that the best way to deal with the forts is to fix bayonets and charge them. The contrast with the Germans’ use of the heaviest artillery in the world to obliterate enemy fortresses simply could not be any more pronounced.

The Russians have recently received news from their intelligence network that a large quantity of enemy reinforcements are on the way to Erzurum. (We looked at this also a little while ago; they are on the way, but it’ll take them a long while to get there.) Yudenich has therefore decided to attack as soon as possible. He tries to sell his subordinate commanders on the idea of starting the already-planned offensive in 48 hours, but after a mass objection he pushes it back. The attack on Erzurum will now begin on the 11th.

The plan is simple and more than a little reminiscent of the plan for capturing Koprukoy. First they’ll attack the strong, self-supporting fortress line to the east of Erzurum that blocks the road from Koprukoy. After a little while to let the Ottomans buy the dummy, they’ll then attack two isolated forts that, along with the Kargapazar-dag mountain (which is already in Russian hands), block the mountain route into Erzurum from the north."

https://makersley.com/forts-erzurum-douaumont-8-feb-1916/


2) "Erzrurum Offensive (11 February 1916)

Neither rain nor snow nor gloom of night…as reinforcements plough through yet more ridiculously snowy weather high up a mountain, heading for the heights north of Erzurum, the Russians begin attacking the strong group of forts that block the east road from Koprukoy. General Yudenich’s plan is to concentrate his small allocation of artillery to obtain local superiority against each fort. In comparison to what the Germans have wheeled out on the Western Front, these are barely pop-guns. But they’re not trying to destroy the forts; just to worry the defenders. From noon until eight in the evening they fire the guns.

And then, under cover of darkness, the Russian army tries to take a modern fortress by infantry attacking with fixed bayonets. It should never have worked. But of course, as mentioned, the garrisons are severely under-strength and they have only a quarter of the artillery that had been planned to occupy the forts (and almost none of it quick-firing). In short order, one of the forts has been broken into, and hand-to-hand fighting goes on all night."

https://makersley.com/weather-verdun-11-feb-1916/


3) "Erzurum Offensive (12 February 1916)

Day 2 of the attack on Erzurum goes well. The Russians have indeed managed to capture a garrisoned concrete fortress in 1916 AD with, effectively, a gigantic prolonged bayonet charge. On the Koprukoy road they’ve also get themselves into position to drop plunging fire over another fortress’s walls.

But, more importantly, off to the north, one of the two isolated mountain forts has been abandoned as untenable by its defenders. The only thing standing between a sizeable Russian force and the city itself is now Tafet Fort, which will be attacked in force tomorrow. Another entire Ottoman defensive position is unravelling under the slightest pressure."

https://makersley.com/the-wipers-times-12-feb-1916/


There are further entries up to and including February 16th which tell of the Ottoman retreat from Erzurum. I have highlighted a few lines of the text in the three excerpts above as they raise two interesting points. The first one concerns Erzurum itself and whether it should be a fortified town. It does have forts, but they have lost a lot of their guns and are not defended by full strength garrisons. The second one is the lack of Russian artillery and what guns they do have are described as "pop guns".

At the moment in the game, Erzurum is not a fortified town and the Russians can put an artillery unit in the Caucasus if they choose to. From the entries on the website this strikes me as a little bit unbalanced. In my view, either Erzurum should be a fortified town and the Russians should retain their artillery option or, Erzurum should remain as it is and Russia should lose the option of putting artillery in the Caucasus. I think I prefer the second option as Infantry Corps attacks already automatically de-entrench enemy units, indicating that artillery fire (field artillery) is already included in their attacking capabilities. I do not think that the heavier guns were deployed on the Caucasus front in any great numbers. Both Russia and the Ottomans did not have very many of these, in any case.

< Message edited by stockwellpete -- 1/13/2021 8:52:32 AM >

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 9
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/13/2021 8:54:01 AM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4522
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Yes, the considerable ease with which Erzurum fell is the reason I didn't make it a fortified town.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 10
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/13/2021 9:14:11 AM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

Yes, the considerable ease with which Erzurum fell is the reason I didn't make it a fortified town.


Do you think the Russian option to deploy artillery in the Caucasus is a bit too much, Bill?

I actually think the mountainous areas in the Caucasus and on the Alpine front should be made a lot more forbidding with units losing strength points to the cold each winter (maybe Mountain Corps would be exempt from these losses due to their generally better equipment?).

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 11
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/14/2021 9:49:27 AM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4522
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
I'm not sure how the Russians could potentially achieve their historical victories there against the Ottomans without it?

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 12
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/14/2021 10:48:46 AM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

I'm not sure how the Russians could potentially achieve their historical victories there against the Ottomans without it?


My take on the Ottomans in the game when I play against the AI (Entente) is that the lack of a regular "proper" Gallipolli event in 1915 allows me to get away with murder. I can transfer 2x Infantry Corps and the Sanders HQ unit eastwards very early in the game leaving Constantinople/Gallipolli relatively lightly defended. Just 1x Corps and a couple of Detachments and keep the Ottoman navy there too and no landing ever occurs. The main fighting then ends up taking place in the Caucasus.

If there was a DE Gallipolli event happening more often than not then the Ottomans would be forced to defend the area around Constantinople much more historically. Sanders HQ would stay there as would the 2x Infantry Corps. Consequently, it would be a much harder decision for the Ottomans to send more troops to the Caucasus in 1914/5. Maybe then the Russians would not need the Artillery unit to break through in the Caucasus?

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 13
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/14/2021 8:46:03 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
Yeah some sort of Gallipoli something would be nice. But I don't see how to implement it besides spawning sea transported units near the area (vulnerable to destruction)

Historically the Ottomans were committing a lot of their forces to that campaign and weren't able to send much to the Caucasus or Baghdad.

I give the Ottomans an Enver Pasha HQ to start with in the Caucasus.

As for the Russian artillery there, well it does good work. But it's one of 3 the Russians get, and is missed elsewhere. The Russians make good progress and can take NM objectives but it isn't clear they can advance at a rate that makes it optimal. Especially once it leaves the railroads, you can't spend MPP on the gamey tactic of railing in high shell count artillery pieces and rail out your lower shell count arty piece to a DMZ area where neither side is advancing. (Yes this is what you actually spend your MPP on to maximize enemy casualties later in the game)

The Ottomans can use detachments effectively as arty shell sponges and retreat as slowly as possible.

< Message edited by Chernobyl -- 1/14/2021 8:47:02 PM >

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 14
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/15/2021 3:21:21 AM   
Tendraline

 

Posts: 36
Joined: 9/28/2020
Status: offline
Some ideas to buff the Russians on this front:

During the later stages of the Persian Constitutional Revolution, the Russians occupied a sizable chunk of Northwestern Iran, a major constitutionalist stronghold, to gain leverage over the Persian government. However, on the eve of World War I, they still occupied the region, including the cities of Tabriz and Rasht. Given the longer front line, the Russians are better able to press the Ottomans, potentially even linking with the British from Mesopotamia.

Near the front, the Ottoman roads don't exactly follow their historical paths. The road to Eleskirt runs quite close to the border (like in the Classic game), and in addition to the road to Erzurum from Trabzon there is apparently a road to Erzincan. Of course, with the Ottoman lines so close to the border, they could be easily cut and Van isolated from the rest of the front, so careful.

Speaking of Van, this was the capital of a puppet government spanning the occupied territories. Make of this what you will in-game, whether they only provide corps or create some sort of insurgency behind enemy lines.

As for naval matters, the Russians made successful landings on the coast of Trabzon Vilayat, although without much resistance, but still they helped the Russians secure the area. So maybe give the Russians a few to use?

< Message edited by Tendraline -- 1/15/2021 3:22:59 AM >

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 15
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/15/2021 10:22:37 AM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Yeah some sort of Gallipoli something would be nice. But I don't see how to implement it besides spawning sea transported units near the area (vulnerable to destruction)

Historically the Ottomans were committing a lot of their forces to that campaign and weren't able to send much to the Caucasus or Baghdad.

I give the Ottomans an Enver Pasha HQ to start with in the Caucasus.


It would have to be some sort of DE I think. Maybe the Entente player would have to pay a certain number of MPP's over a number of turns to fund the expedition in 1915. And maybe it could happen any time between April and September that year. Perhaps for it to fire you would require the Entente player to put a certain number of Capital ships (including PreDreadnoughts in that description) within a certain number of hexes of Constantinople (or Gallipolli itself). Something like that anyway. The Entente units would automatically be placed on dry land near Gallipolli rather than being in transport ships. Then, if the Central Powers player has moved all his Ottoman units to the Caucasus there is a real danger that Constantinople would fall. I think there also could be a second DE, which would allow Entente reinforcements to Gallipolli if there was a chance of the Entente breaking out from there.

quote:

As for the Russian artillery there, well it does good work. But it's one of 3 the Russians get, and is missed elsewhere. The Russians make good progress and can take NM objectives but it isn't clear they can advance at a rate that makes it optimal. Especially once it leaves the railroads, you can't spend MPP on the gamey tactic of railing in high shell count artillery pieces and rail out your lower shell count arty piece to a DMZ area where neither side is advancing. (Yes this is what you actually spend your MPP on to maximize enemy casualties later in the game)

The Ottomans can use detachments effectively as arty shell sponges and retreat as slowly as possible.


This depends on how you think about artillery in the game. I am fairly convinced now that artillery is far too powerful in the default game (I would go so far as to say that I think it actually breaks the game) and that, in effect, some artillery is being counted twice. Infantry Corps attacking entrenched enemy units de-entrench 1 level for every attack (i.e. the trenches are damaged)- so surely that means that field artillery fire is being represented here? Then you have separate artillery units that can also attack, which are best understood as the abstracted ability of an army group/nation to concentrate their available artillery fire. Given that field artillery fire is already included in the Infantry Corps attack then this abstracted artillery fire can only represent the heavier guns and howitzers. Otherwise, you are counting field artillery fire twice.

So the question then is - did the Russians (or the Ottomans, for that matter) have heavy guns in the Caucasus? My answer to that is "No". Did the British have heavy guns in Palestine and Iraq in considerable numbers? Again, the answer is "No". So I would investigate the possibility of a Gallipolli event (that would happen more often than not) and I would balance that by removing the heavy artillery option for the Russians in the Caucasus. I would also make mountain hexes more forbidding in the game and represent soldiers dying from winter conditions in those hexes (as typhus is represented now). All this would significantly shift the focus away from the Caucasian front towards Constantinople and the Straits, which I think would be historically appropriate. The Ottomans had time to conduct the Armenian genocide in 1915 in the Caucasus region without Russian interference and the main Russian advance there came in 1916 not 1914.


< Message edited by stockwellpete -- 1/15/2021 10:25:58 AM >

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 16
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/15/2021 7:19:16 PM   
Tendraline

 

Posts: 36
Joined: 9/28/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

It would have to be some sort of DE I think. Maybe the Entente player would have to pay a certain number of MPP's over a number of turns to fund the expedition in 1915. And maybe it could happen any time between April and September that year.


Eh, February 1915. Like IRL, so that they could take Gallipoli without the threat of Bulgaria. You might almost be able to knock Bulgaria out of the war completely, so there's that carrot.

quote:

The Entente units would automatically be placed on dry land near Gallipolli rather than being in transport ships.


Just stack detachments on Gallipoli and you have corps in the east. Also, it might not even be possible to code it in the first place.



< Message edited by Tendraline -- 1/15/2021 7:20:26 PM >

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 17
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/15/2021 7:40:45 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tendraline

Eh, February 1915. Like IRL, so that they could take Gallipoli without the threat of Bulgaria. You might almost be able to knock Bulgaria out of the war completely, so there's that carrot.


The naval attack started in February 1915, but the actual landings started in late April 1915. That is what the DE would represent.

quote:



Just stack detachments on Gallipoli and you have corps in the east. Also, it might not even be possible to code it in the first place.



I don't think that strategy is as viable as it sounds. You would have to buy quite a few Detachments and then keep them there for most of 1915 to prevent a landing at Gallipoli or nearby. The coast near Chanak should also be a possible landing ground too. There are 8 or 9 land hexes that could be possible targets for the Entente. Buying lots of Detachments early in the game would undoubtedly weaken other Ottoman fronts and delay their Tech advances too. It would need some playtesting and balancing to get it right, I would say.

I expect it is possible to code it in some form. The invading units could probably be made available at the "New Units" tab and then be activated when the Entente ships were in position (within a certain number of hexes of the coast).

(in reply to Tendraline)
Post #: 18
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/18/2021 4:09:03 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
I have had another thought about this Gallipoli business this afternoon. In most games against the AI the Gallipoli event does not fire. The Entente forces occupy that island off the Dardanelles but then just sit there the whole game. I think I have had one rather feeble landing from there in half a dozen games playing as the Central Powers against the AI.

However, in the game at the moment we have off-map events like Tsingtao and Coronel/Falklands that appear as captions and are resolved without any units being active in the game. Tsingtao seems to come up virtually every game as an Entente victory and Coronel/Falklands also appears as a guaranteed Entente victory spread over two captions, with the level of damage received by a British ship varying just a bit. Could these already existing in-game mechanisms help us with a regular Gallipoli 1915 event?

The first way of approaching the Gallipoli issue is what might be called the “Tsingtao method”. This would just involve a caption appearing at the beginning of 1915, and then another one at the end of 1915, stating that the Gallipoli landing had occurred and then that the Entente had withdrawn its forces. No Entente units would appear on the map at all. This would not be very satisfactory, but at least Gallipoli would be in the game as a regular event.

The second way would be the “Coronel/Falklands method”. This would be the same as the “Tsingtao method” (no Entente units would appear on the map at all and the Entente would always be defeated), but the bonuses and hits to UK and Ottoman National Morale would vary from game to game just like the damage to the British ship sent to the Falklands varies from game to game. Again this is not very satisfactory as, like the “Tsingtao method”, the captions take no account of the position of actual Ottoman units on the map - but at least there would be some variation to the outcome within the parameters of an overall Entente major setback.

The third method, which I am going to call “Coronel/Falklands Plus”, would be considerably different. First of all the Gallipoli event would only be triggered by the Entente player moving a Capital ship within a certain number of hexes from Gallipoli at any point between, say, February and August 1915. Once this happened a DE would fire and the Entente player would say “Yes” or “No” to the Gallipoli event.

If the Ottomans did not have the area “well defended” when the event fired then the Entente player would say “Yes” and UK/Anzac units would land as in an amphibious landing and the game would continue as usual from there. A second DE could then fire shortly afterwards allowing the Entente player the option of landing a HQ unit there as well. Other supporting units could be ferried in by transport ships in the normal way.

If the Ottoman Turks did have the area already well defended (“well defended” would have to be clearly understood, so maybe the Sanders HQ unit with 2x Infantry Corps and 2x Detachments within a certain number of hexes of Gallipoli or Constantinople) then the Entente player might mostly say “No” to the event. And that would be the end of it for that game although the Entente player could subsequently decide to independently organise another amphibious landing in the area later in the game.

But what if the Entente player still decided to say “Yes” even though the area was “well defended”? This might be where coding could be difficult. What I think should happen is that no actual Entente units would appear on the map and the outcome of the landings would be decided in the same way as the “Coronel/Falklands” method at the very end of 1915.

However, there could still be an advantage for the Entente player to say “Yes” in this difficult situation for them because saying “Yes” would force the Central Powers player to keep those Ottoman units there for the whole of 1915. If they moved them away after just a few months, and before the second caption ending the Gallipoli event had fired, the area would lose its “well defended” status and then actual Entente units could appear on the map as per an amphibious landing. This possibility would tie up Ottoman forces in the west for the whole of 1915 and allow the Entente player the option of launching offensives in Palestine or the Caucasus that year. The game system can already track whether the Germans keep a certain number of units in the Ukraine to guarantee grain supplies so perhaps that mechanism could be helpful here too?

Would something along these lines actually work? At the moment I feel in matches against the AI the lack of a regular Gallipoli event means that the Caucasus front acts as a sort of substitute for it with fierce fighting there almost continuously between 1914 and 1917. In actual fact, after the Ottoman debacle at Sarakamish in 1914/15, the Caucasus front was fairly quiet in 1915. The Ottomans were even able to organise the Armenian genocide there without major Russian interference. With a regular Gallipoli event it would pull the centre of gravity of Ottoman operations in matches against the AI significantly westwards. At the moment there is nothing to stop me sending the Sanders HQ and a couple of Infantry Corps eastwards before Turkey even enters the war. One Infantry Corps and a few Detachments with a Turkish ship in the Port by Gallipoli and an invasion never occurs.

< Message edited by stockwellpete -- 1/18/2021 4:13:51 PM >

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 19
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/19/2021 4:05:38 AM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

I'm not sure how the Russians could potentially achieve their historical victories there against the Ottomans without it?


My take on the Ottomans in the game when I play against the AI (Entente) is that the lack of a regular "proper" Gallipolli event in 1915 allows me to get away with murder. I can transfer 2x Infantry Corps and the Sanders HQ unit eastwards very early in the game leaving Constantinople/Gallipolli relatively lightly defended. Just 1x Corps and a couple of Detachments and keep the Ottoman navy there too and no landing ever occurs. The main fighting then ends up taking place in the Caucasus.

If there was a DE Gallipolli event happening more often than not then the Ottomans would be forced to defend the area around Constantinople much more historically. Sanders HQ would stay there as would the 2x Infantry Corps. Consequently, it would be a much harder decision for the Ottomans to send more troops to the Caucasus in 1914/5. Maybe then the Russians would not need the Artillery unit to break through in the Caucasus?



With due respect, the Ottomans in any game against a good player are in serious trouble.
Players use those starting UK garrisons to land into Ottoman territory and capture towns and sever railway lines cutting off supplies, the humungously gigantic Royal Navy ensures the Ottoman and Austrian battle navies are bottled up inside ports. The French navy and Italian navy additions end up in overkill.

Half the Ottoman play consists of hitting "WHACK-A-MOLE" attacks, on their own these attacks are costly and useless but they cause supply shortages which ensure 1915 is wasted, in 1916 the British artillery opens up and starts a giant push on 2 fronts - SINAI and MESOPOTAMIA and soon Baghdad and Jerusalem fall, simultaneously Caucasus collapses resulting in Ottomans going belly up by mid 1916 in most games, unless the Germans has really pushed Italy or Russia or France to surrender.

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 20
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/19/2021 4:08:55 AM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline
My point above being, is adding Gallipoli to this mix means the Ottomans have no chances of survival. Their mines in the East are easy prey for Russians, their cities need to protected with Detachments. Arab partisans rise up and a lot of other problems.

Honestly, they need 2/3 "5" strength garrisons on important cities. An additional Gallipoli event will make it a pain to play Ottomans.

Historically, right until mid/late 1917 the Ottomans did not collapse, infact they stabilised most fronts and won decisive defensive wins on the Mesopotamian and Gallipoli fronts and defended well in the Sinai. They did collapse in 1918 but that is after a lot of exhaustion.

(in reply to shri)
Post #: 21
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/19/2021 4:08:56 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 3870
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: shri


quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

I'm not sure how the Russians could potentially achieve their historical victories there against the Ottomans without it?


My take on the Ottomans in the game when I play against the AI (Entente) is that the lack of a regular "proper" Gallipolli event in 1915 allows me to get away with murder. I can transfer 2x Infantry Corps and the Sanders HQ unit eastwards very early in the game leaving Constantinople/Gallipolli relatively lightly defended. Just 1x Corps and a couple of Detachments and keep the Ottoman navy there too and no landing ever occurs. The main fighting then ends up taking place in the Caucasus.

If there was a DE Gallipolli event happening more often than not then the Ottomans would be forced to defend the area around Constantinople much more historically. Sanders HQ would stay there as would the 2x Infantry Corps. Consequently, it would be a much harder decision for the Ottomans to send more troops to the Caucasus in 1914/5. Maybe then the Russians would not need the Artillery unit to break through in the Caucasus?



With due respect, the Ottomans in any game against a good player are in serious trouble.
Players use those starting UK garrisons to land into Ottoman territory and capture towns and sever railway lines cutting off supplies, the humungously gigantic Royal Navy ensures the Ottoman and Austrian battle navies are bottled up inside ports. The French navy and Italian navy additions end up in overkill.

Half the Ottoman play consists of hitting "WHACK-A-MOLE" attacks, on their own these attacks are costly and useless but they cause supply shortages which ensure 1915 is wasted, in 1916 the British artillery opens up and starts a giant push on 2 fronts - SINAI and MESOPOTAMIA and soon Baghdad and Jerusalem fall, simultaneously Caucasus collapses resulting in Ottomans going belly up by mid 1916 in most games, unless the Germans has really pushed Italy or Russia or France to surrender.


Haha exactly

_____________________________


(in reply to shri)
Post #: 22
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/19/2021 5:04:03 AM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: shri

With due respect, the Ottomans in any game against a good player are in serious trouble.
Players use those starting UK garrisons to land into Ottoman territory and capture towns and sever railway lines cutting off supplies, the humungously gigantic Royal Navy ensures the Ottoman and Austrian battle navies are bottled up inside ports. The French navy and Italian navy additions end up in overkill.

Half the Ottoman play consists of hitting "WHACK-A-MOLE" attacks, on their own these attacks are costly and useless but they cause supply shortages which ensure 1915 is wasted, in 1916 the British artillery opens up and starts a giant push on 2 fronts - SINAI and MESOPOTAMIA and soon Baghdad and Jerusalem fall, simultaneously Caucasus collapses resulting in Ottomans going belly up by mid 1916 in most games, unless the Germans has really pushed Italy or Russia or France to surrender.


But I have made it perfectly clear that I am talking abut games against the AI. There is another thread about "Micro-landings" and I am hoping that they will be addressed at some point in the future as they are obviously very unrealistic. They do not happen in SP apart from one attack early on that is easily dealt with. It seems a "no brainer" to me that something is wrong with the set up if a key event like Gallipoli cannot be incorporated into the game. The British and Russians should not be getting "free" artillery units in Palestine and the Caucasus either - they completely unbalance those two fronts. If players want to build artillery units themselves and send them there then that is fine - there must always be room for alt-history variations. But the default Ottoman set up needs radical surgery, in my opinion.

< Message edited by stockwellpete -- 1/19/2021 5:34:49 AM >

(in reply to shri)
Post #: 23
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/19/2021 8:45:12 AM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline
Ya, except the inital BEF, nothing should be free, odd detachments raised by Austrians or Serbs or Ottomans or any of those rebel forces whether Arabs or non Arabs are ok, but full corps or worse artillery shouldn't be raised in a player game.

EDIT: I think the Devs did it to help the AI, it should remain an AI only thing then, players getting free artillery magically transported and ready to fire is sheer nonsense.

< Message edited by shri -- 1/19/2021 8:47:03 AM >

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 24
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/19/2021 1:13:15 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: shri

Players use those starting UK garrisons to land into Ottoman territory and capture towns and sever railway lines cutting off supplies . . .


Which UK garrisons? Do you mean Gibraltar and Malta? Or do you mean UK Detachments such as Nicosia? Are garrisons able to transport by sea then? If so, perhaps they shouldn't be able to? Should Nicosia be a Garrison rather than a Detachment? Cyprus was very quiet during WW1 and the British considered giving it to Greece as a bribe at one point.

(in reply to shri)
Post #: 25
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/19/2021 3:10:43 PM   
Patrat


Posts: 107
Joined: 11/17/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: shri

EDIT: I think the Devs did it to help the AI, it should remain an AI only thing then, players getting free artillery magically transported and ready to fire is sheer nonsense.


Free artillery? It's not free for the Brits or the Russians. It costs 200mpp, spreadover 4 turns I believe. Which is around a 30 percent discount. Nice, but hardly free. Doesn't it also starts at half strength?

Magically transported? If a player bought the Russian artillery the regular way, couldn't he place it in the Caucasus exactly where the half strength unit appears. It would also be at full strength, not half strength. The Brits would have to transport theirs by sea of course, but it would at least be at full strength.

So for that 30 percent discount the Russian player gets forced to place a half strength artillery in the Caucasus. Which isn't always the best place for it. The Brits get a slightly better deal in not having to transport the half strength unit, but I hardly think that's game breaking. They still have to pay to bring it up to strength.


My last game as Entante I didn't purchase the so called free artillery, so my memory is a little hazy. Please feel free to correct me if I'm incorrect about any of the above.

< Message edited by Patrat -- 1/19/2021 3:40:37 PM >

(in reply to shri)
Post #: 26
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/21/2021 7:20:36 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
Playing as Central Powers against the AI, I have managed to get the UK Marine unit at Mudros to land near Gallipoli. Normally it just sits there all game and I think that might have been because I usually put one of the Ottoman ships in port at Sedd El Bakr. I left that port vacant in my latest game. The UK Marine unit was easily destroyed within a couple of turns, but that was because I kept Sanders HQ and 2x Infantry Corps there. I think I shall do that in future as a "house rule" when playing against the AI.

(in reply to Patrat)
Post #: 27
RE: Caucasus front setup - 1/21/2021 10:33:41 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

Playing as Central Powers against the AI, I have managed to get the UK Marine unit at Mudros to land near Gallipoli. Normally it just sits there all game and I think that might have been because I usually put one of the Ottoman ships in port at Sedd El Bakr. I left that port vacant in my latest game. The UK Marine unit was easily destroyed within a couple of turns, but that was because I kept Sanders HQ and 2x Infantry Corps there. I think I shall do that in future as a "house rule" when playing against the AI.


And now I have had a second British handing in November 1915 - at Gallipoli and Chanak.

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 28
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I >> Caucasus front setup Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.246