Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . .

 
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 >> Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/22/2021 3:03:33 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
I have made a few posts recently about Gallipoli and how it seems to be a bit of a damp squib in SP. In most games it does not fire at all even though the British Marines arrive at Mudros each game. One of the things I do, by habit more than anything else, is disperse my small Ottoman fleet to the ports close to Constantinople. One of those ports is Sedd El Bahr. And I think that putting a ship there is what is causing the Gallipoli event not to fire. This is because, in my last game, I left the port empty and the British Marine unit landed near Gallipoli even though I had the Sanders HQ unit and 2x Infantry Corps plus 1x Detachment right there. I easily destroyed this Marine Unit, but I continued to leave the port open and a second landing occurred at Gallipoli and at Chanak.

I then looked online to see what I could find out about the port at Sedd El Bahr and it seems that it was only a very tiny fishing village (with a castle). So perhaps there wasn’t a significant port along that stretch of coastline? If so, then perhaps the port at Sedd El Bahr can be removed so the Gallipoli event fires every game?

Obviously this will make things tougher for the Ottomans, so by way of compensation they could get the opportunity to buy more garrisons to deal with “micro-landings”, and Britain and Russia could lose the very favourable DE events that allow them discounted artillery in Palestine and the Caucasus respectively?
Post #: 1
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/22/2021 5:57:44 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
Wouldn't the lack of a port in the area make an Entente landing even less feasible?

I suspect the AI may be scared of moving its transports past an enemy warship.

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 2
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/22/2021 6:09:33 PM   
stockwellpete

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Wouldn't the lack of a port in the area make an Entente landing even less feasible?

I suspect the AI may be scared of moving its transports past an enemy warship.


They are not landing at the port though. There was an Ottoman Corps unit in Sedd El Bahr. Another in Gallipoli. The Marines can land anywhere, can't they? The UK IV Corps also landed on the coast later in the year without using the port.

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 3
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/22/2021 7:38:54 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
Sure but if the Ottomans can really spare two early corps in that area then a landing doesn't really make sense in the first place. Better to hit them somewhere else.

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 4
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/22/2021 7:59:25 PM   
stockwellpete

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Sure but if the Ottomans can really spare two early corps in that area then a landing doesn't really make sense in the first place. Better to hit them somewhere else.


Well, the Turks should have to defend that area to a certain extent, otherwise Constantinople will fall. And they had just lost territory to the north in the Balkan Wars prior to WW1 so it would have been very well defended. Didn't stop Churchill attacking there though, did it? At the moment, in SP, all you need to do is put a ship at Sedd El Bahr and a Detachment in Constantinople and then you can start shipping everything else eastwards. Gallipoli doesn't seem to happen at all.

With Gallipoli in SP, the first attack by the single Marines unit is easily dealt with by the 2x Corps and Sanders HQ. But what if the Marine landing triggered a DE and 1 or 2 more Entente units could land quickly to support the Marines? That would be very realistic. And by tying the Ottomans up near Constantinople the Russians and British could consider attacking elsewhere (without the discounted artillery, of course). The real history is very exciting and I think more needs to be made of it.


(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 5
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/23/2021 6:49:58 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4514
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
The thing about having a port at Sedd El Bahr is that if there weren't one there, then an Entente force that lands in the peninsular and later decides to evacuate would not be able to do so (apart from any Marines that are present there). As they did historically evacuate, it seems appropriate to have it so that an evacuation could be attempted if desired.

Additionally, the presence of the port does (the Ottoman navy notwithstanding) make the prospect of an invasion that much more enticing, as it could be used to bring in reinforcements for less cost than an amphibious assault.



_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 6
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/23/2021 7:02:34 PM   
stockwellpete

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

The thing about having a port at Sedd El Bahr is that if there weren't one there, then an Entente force that lands in the peninsular and later decides to evacuate would not be able to do so (apart from any Marines that are present there). As they did historically evacuate, it seems appropriate to have it so that an evacuation could be attempted if desired.

Additionally, the presence of the port does (the Ottoman navy notwithstanding) make the prospect of an invasion that much more enticing, as it could be used to bring in reinforcements for less cost than an amphibious assault.




Yes, but in SP putting an Ottoman ship in that port seems to stop the Entente from landing there at all. The landing does not fire and the UK Marine unit just stays at Mudros the entire game. And this allows the CP player to move Sanders HQ and 2x Infantry Corps to the east even before Turkey enters the war! I am sure that this is not an issue in MP. I now play with my own "house rule" against the AI, where I do not put an Ottoman ship at Sedd EL Bahr and I always keep Sanders HQ and 2x Infantry Corps near Constantinople until the end of 1915 at least. It seems more realistic to me.

Do the Entente really need to be able to physically evacuate? If the units that land are "destroyed" then they are just re-purchased for 135MPP's and can be put somewhere else on the map, can't they? So, in a sense, they have been "evacuated" as being "destroyed" in the game means that they are no longer able to fight, not that they are all dead.

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 7
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/23/2021 7:09:43 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4514
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
The discussion about Gallipoli has given me an idea, which is now possible due to some recent engine changes, and that would be to reduce Ottoman National Morale by (say) 50 points a turn if there aren't 2 Corps within (say) 5 hexes of Adrianople.

That way there is an incentive to keep 2 Corps in European Turkey.

The question then is what effect this has on balance. This will give the Ottomans the potential to deploy two Detachments elsewhere, but will the lack of these Corps against Russia or the British in Egypt/Iraq mean that the Ottomans require a little something to compensate?

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 8
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/23/2021 7:10:56 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4514
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

Do the Entente really need to be able to physically evacuate? If the units that land are "destroyed" then they are just re-purchased for 135MPP's and can be put somewhere else on the map, can't they? So, in a sense, they have been "evacuated" as being "destroyed" in the game means that they are no longer able to fight, not that they are all dead.


There is truth in that, but when designing the game I figured that if the Entente couldn't directly evacuate then some would complain.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 9
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/23/2021 7:25:24 PM   
mdsmall

 

Posts: 434
Joined: 4/28/2020
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

There is truth in that, but when designing the game I figured that if the Entente couldn't directly evacuate then some would complain.


Bill - I can think of another approach to the problem: which would be to relax the rule preventing amphibious embarkations by regular units from coastal hexes. That way the Allies could evacuate their units from Gallipoli without putting a port - which does not seem to have been there - in Sedd El Bahr. It would also enable something to happen in the game which actually happened in the war.

In terms of game balance, you could prohibit non-Marine units that embarked this way from then carrying out an amphibious assault until they had restored good order by disembarking first in a regular port. If such a prohibition would be hard to introduce in the game engine, you could give a large readiness penalty to units that amphibiously embarked from a non port hex, so they could not be effectively used to then carry out an amphibious assault.

I think the idea of amphibious evacuations is a reasonable one to introduce to the game.

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 10
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/23/2021 7:43:01 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
I don't think it makes much sense to punish the Ottomans for not keeping corps in Thrace. After the Gallipoli campaign the Ottomans sent a lot of their forces away from the area to help in other theatres. Why should they be forced to keep corps in the area if no attack is imminent?

There is already an incentive to secure the area. You leave several NM objective locations open to attack and the sea of Marmara can become opened if you rail your corps away. After Bulgaria enters it becomes easier to rail defensive units to the area, but this is precisely one of the reasons the Entente evacuated.

< Message edited by Chernobyl -- 1/23/2021 7:49:13 PM >

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 11
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/23/2021 7:49:20 PM   
stockwellpete

 

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

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

There is truth in that, but when designing the game I figured that if the Entente couldn't directly evacuate then some would complain.


But now you have got someone complaining because you have invented a port! Ha-ha!

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 12
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/23/2021 7:57:36 PM   
stockwellpete

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

The discussion about Gallipoli has given me an idea, which is now possible due to some recent engine changes, and that would be to reduce Ottoman National Morale by (say) 50 points a turn if there aren't 2 Corps within (say) 5 hexes of Adrianople.

That way there is an incentive to keep 2 Corps in European Turkey.

The question then is what effect this has on balance. This will give the Ottomans the potential to deploy two Detachments elsewhere, but will the lack of these Corps against Russia or the British in Egypt/Iraq mean that the Ottomans require a little something to compensate?


I like this idea for SP. Or they have to keep the Sanders HQ and 1x Infantry Corps there. The possible freeing up of Detachments will also help with the "micro-landings" issue. For me, the obvious other thing to consider is the 2x DE that give Britain and Russia discounted artillery units in Palestine and the Caucasus. Both fronts are unbalanced by these in SP.

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 13
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/23/2021 8:06:23 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
Just to chuck another thought in here - what if when the UK Marine unit lands it triggers a "Yes" or "No" DE event the very next turn allowing the Entente to put another unit there quickly for a certain amount of MPP's? In that way the Ottoman player would not know exactly how strong the Entente landing force would be and it would be a tougher decision about how to defend the area.

Gallipoli was a very big event and is one of the better known events of WW1. It should have a DE and a caption (or two) of its own to raise its profile in the game.

< Message edited by stockwellpete -- 1/23/2021 8:13:52 PM >

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 14
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/23/2021 8:44:05 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 3865
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

The discussion about Gallipoli has given me an idea, which is now possible due to some recent engine changes, and that would be to reduce Ottoman National Morale by (say) 50 points a turn if there aren't 2 Corps within (say) 5 hexes of Adrianople.

That way there is an incentive to keep 2 Corps in European Turkey.

The question then is what effect this has on balance. This will give the Ottomans the potential to deploy two Detachments elsewhere, but will the lack of these Corps against Russia or the British in Egypt/Iraq mean that the Ottomans require a little something to compensate?


I shudder at the thought of losing two corps as Ottomans from other theaters!

_____________________________


(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 15
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/24/2021 12:38:10 AM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 747
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: online
Well, aside from the to and fro on this subject...

In MP's as the CP, I always keep at least 2 Ottoman Corps in Turkish Thrace for a variety of reasons. Also..I always buy an Ottoman airship as soon as possible even though I'm short on money. I've been able to sink multiple Entente naval assets with the small navy based in the Sea of Marmara in conjunction with with that zeppelin..including DN's...if they poke their noses too close.

To strengthen the Ottomans without too much balance issues for early game, having that airship as a unit that gets deployed upon entry into the war without having to buy it would help their position imho. Having one early on might also ameliorate some of the suprise landings on their huge coast line that has been discussed extensively on this forum.
The Ottoman player may not be able to stop the AV from coming, but they would see it and could take measures to defend possible locations. One thing also...since amphibious warfare is so rudimentary in this game as opposed to WiE or WaW, having them spotted could give the over stretched Ottomans a little extra time to muster something together to counter the threat.

Anyway...that's another reason I always buy an airship for the Ottomans as early as possible.

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 16
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/24/2021 2:26:38 AM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
You can get the vision you need from an Austrian submarine, probably earlier than your Airship shows up too. If the Entente warships are hanging out within striking range of your warships that is their mistake. Actually probably letting the Austrian sub slip out before Greece is conquered is also probably a mistake too, but that's another topic.

You also need that airship or sub in order to harrass any Russian sub which attempts to choke your mine. Because the Russians could potentially hide a dreadnought along the path to their submarine as a nasty surprise. If you spot their dreadnought hanging nearby though, you can actually sink it, especially if you repair your BB a bit. So for Turkey's economy vision of the sea is actually essential.

The unit the Ottomans need most to keep things historical is an Enver Pasha HQ (he's one of the worst commanders in the game but way better than nothing) mobilizing near Erzurum. That way Von Sanders would stay in Thrace for once instead of always ahistorically rushing off to the mountains. As it is, the Ottomans simply can't do with just their other HQ near Van which spawns in an awkward hex. The Russian mountain corps are quite powerful and it's difficult in some cases to hold on even with Sanders there.

I think some gallipoli event would be cooler than some abstract restriction on Ottoman troop placements. If the Ottomans want to leave the road to Constantinople open, let them risk it. Because after all, Churchill and his allies believed there were few Ottoman units in the area and it was possible to defeat the Ottomans quickly. That's the main reason they landed! Forcing players to keep Ottoman corps in the area makes the game predictable and why would the Entente choose to land in an area where they know two Ottoman corps most likely remain?

< Message edited by Chernobyl -- 1/24/2021 2:28:29 AM >

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)
Post #: 17
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/24/2021 3:45:33 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 3865
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

You can get the vision you need from an Austrian submarine, probably earlier than your Airship shows up too. If the Entente warships are hanging out within striking range of your warships that is their mistake. Actually probably letting the Austrian sub slip out before Greece is conquered is also probably a mistake too, but that's another topic.

You also need that airship or sub in order to harrass any Russian sub which attempts to choke your mine. Because the Russians could potentially hide a dreadnought along the path to their submarine as a nasty surprise. If you spot their dreadnought hanging nearby though, you can actually sink it, especially if you repair your BB a bit. So for Turkey's economy vision of the sea is actually essential.

The unit the Ottomans need most to keep things historical is an Enver Pasha HQ (he's one of the worst commanders in the game but way better than nothing) mobilizing near Erzurum. That way Von Sanders would stay in Thrace for once instead of always ahistorically rushing off to the mountains. As it is, the Ottomans simply can't do with just their other HQ near Van which spawns in an awkward hex. The Russian mountain corps are quite powerful and it's difficult in some cases to hold on even with Sanders there.

I think some gallipoli event would be cooler than some abstract restriction on Ottoman troop placements. If the Ottomans want to leave the road to Constantinople open, let them risk it. Because after all, Churchill and his allies believed there were few Ottoman units in the area and it was possible to defeat the Ottomans quickly. That's the main reason they landed! Forcing players to keep Ottoman corps in the area makes the game predictable and why would the Entente choose to land in an area where they know two Ottoman corps most likely remain?


Agreed I don't like an artificial restriction on troop placements at all...

_____________________________


(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 18
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/24/2021 4:05:57 AM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 747
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

The unit the Ottomans need most to keep things historical is an Enver Pasha HQ (he's one of the worst commanders in the game but way better than nothing) mobilizing near Erzurum. That way Von Sanders would stay in Thrace for once instead of always ahistorically rushing off to the mountains. As it is, the Ottomans simply can't do with just their other HQ near Van which spawns in an awkward hex. The Russian mountain corps are quite powerful and it's difficult in some cases to hold on even with Sanders there.




You've advocated this before and I second this proposal. To spend the 35 MMPs or whatever it is before the Ottomans get into the War just to transport Sanders to Trabazon is onerous to say the least when there's so much more they have to do to get a modicum of security going.

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 19
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/24/2021 4:18:49 AM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 747
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

You also need that airship or sub in order to harrass any Russian sub which attempts to choke your mine. Because the Russians could potentially hide a dreadnought along the path to their submarine as a nasty surprise. If you spot their dreadnought hanging nearby though, you can actually sink it, especially if you repair your BB a bit. So for Turkey's economy vision of the sea is actually essential.



'Vision of the sea'. What a great line. I don't know how many times I've read other peoples opinion that airships are worthless. Not so. And, like I spelled out in a previous post on this thread, they are essential for the Ottomans. Also are the 'eyes that go under the sea' from Austria-Hungary...to a Turkish port. While a breakout attempt by a submarine(s) from the Adriatic to the Sea of Marmara is risky, the hair raising attempt if successful is not only fun, but a huge boost to Turkish security and naval potential in an area dominated by the Entente.

< Message edited by OldCrowBalthazor -- 1/24/2021 4:20:37 AM >

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 20
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/24/2021 9:04:39 AM   
stockwellpete

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl
I think some gallipoli event would be cooler than some abstract restriction on Ottoman troop placements. If the Ottomans want to leave the road to Constantinople open, let them risk it. Because after all, Churchill and his allies believed there were few Ottoman units in the area and it was possible to defeat the Ottomans quickly. That's the main reason they landed! Forcing players to keep Ottoman corps in the area makes the game predictable and why would the Entente choose to land in an area where they know two Ottoman corps most likely remain?


One idea that I posted before somewhere about a Gallipoli event is that it might be triggered at some point in 1915 if an Entente capital ship entered a specific area of sea hexes around the Dardanelles. In that way there would be an unpredictability about when the landing might occur. And then if the Gallipoli DE allowed the Entente to deploy an extra Marine unit, say, then the Ottomans would not know exactly what size of enemy force was coming.

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 21
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/24/2021 4:17:11 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4514
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

The unit the Ottomans need most to keep things historical is an Enver Pasha HQ (he's one of the worst commanders in the game but way better than nothing) mobilizing near Erzurum. That way Von Sanders would stay in Thrace for once instead of always ahistorically rushing off to the mountains.


If Enver were set to deploy at very low strength, say strength 2, so that the Ottomans still need to spend MPPs to reinforce him (though with the bonus that von Sanders is now available for use wherever desired) would this swing the overall balance away from where it is now?

My question is based on the assumption that nothing else changes, as I am wondering how great the impact of this alone would be.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 22
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/24/2021 5:48:53 PM   
Chernobyl

 

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

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre
how great the impact


Well I think there would be very little short term impact in terms of Ottoman offense. The Ottomans really can't advance through entrenched Russian mountain corps, even with a strength 10 better HQ like Sanders. This is true even if the Russians elect to send minimal forces to the Caucasus. The road network is poor especially for the Ottomans who are farther away from rails and have fewer roads to work with.

In terms of Ottoman defense, it would help once it gets to full strength, but the Ottomans would have to prioritize repairing that HQ, very likely starting at strength = 1 due to attack from covid (er I mean typhus). This would take a while, and I'm not sure low-supply and poorly led Ottoman troops would be strong enough to resist mountain corps attacks in the first few turns (would have to test this). I'm so used to them getting better (barely adequate) supply and leadership from the Sanders HQ.

Honestly not sure why to start Ottoman HQ at low strength. Even a full strength Ottoman HQ doesn't make an advance towards Kars possible. The important thing it does is allow you to entrench some extra mountain hexes for leverage (you can get 5+ supply on a couple of of those hexes without roads and thus put up a reasonable entrenched defense). Without decent supply, the Ottomans can't leverage these mountain hexes for defense and the Russian advance towards Erzurum wins up being even easier. I'm not 100% sure a strength 2 HQ would be an acceptable replacement for Sanders and it might be so weak in the first few turns that I would wind up sending Sanders anyhow.

In the long run, Enver would get sacked (historical as he never again commanded an army after his disaster attempting to retake Kars) but probably replaced by the best general (Ataturk) which would be ahistorical. (Or the Ottomans could put Ataturk on top of Sanders or Demjal, depending on which front is "hot"). Pretty much all the manual HQ leader changes in this game are ahistorical so that's a separate issue. Long run the Turks would have an additional HQ (again very expensive for them if you start it at strength = 2).

So what does an extra Ottoman HQ entail? Well, if Gallipoli becomes a legitimate threat, then Sanders may very well stay put in Thrace. OR a daring Ottoman player may elect to rail Sanders down to Egypt and send Demjal Pasha on his long walk towards Baghdad/Basra. In my experience in MP, I started marching Demjal HQ immediately as soon as he spawned upon mobiliztion. (This was in a game where I conquered Serbia VERY quickly so the Bulgarian army was available for defense of the Sinai). Demjal arrived in the Basra area in time to meet a British army which also has a HQ which recently arrived. I believe the British were getting frisky and were beginning to counterattack my low readiness low morale units. The Ottoman HQ boosted the Turk trenches and stalemate around Basra began.

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 23
RE: Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . - 1/26/2021 4:44:28 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
I will also mention I don't tend to keep a warship in that port and the AI never seems to do any sort of Gallipoli landing. I don't think it matters whether you have a ship there or not for the ai's logic.

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 24
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I >> Gallipoli and Sedd El Bahr . . . 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

0.288