Qatar Depression effect

[gwgardner]

The RtV map and I presume the replacement game's map too, does not show the effect of the Qatar Depression, as far as providing a natural barrier to warfare on the western approaches to Alexandria/Cairo.

I note that the SPI War in Europe game doesn't even allow combat units to traverse the depression. If the depression were present in RtV it would certainly benefit the UK in defense of Egypt.

Right now, with the ridiculous ease of the Axis taking Gibraltar and Turkey, the defense of Egypt is impossible.

Any chance the new game will correct this, and other issues? (another issue, like the resource importance of Sweden - the resource area now located in Norway is misplaced, and should be moved to Sweden.)

[BlueMak]

At least you are not absolute. [8|]

[doomtrader]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression

You are talking about this?

[doomtrader]

I can try to do something with the issue

[gwgardner]

Yes,sorry, the Qattara Depression

Qattara Depression

Article from:
World Encyclopedia
More results for:
Qattara Depression | Copyright information© World Encyclopedia 2005, originally published by Oxford University Press 2005. (Hide copyright information)

Qattara Depression Desert basin in the Libyan Desert, nw Egypt. Impassable by armies and vehicles, it marked the s end of the British defensive line at El Alamein ...

[jjdenver]

Also I wonder whether Turkey is just too easy to conquer. Perhaps their army is not as large as it was historically or maybe they should have partisans, or perhaps their army is poorly positioned to defend the country - not sure but I doubt that Turkey would have been so easily conquered?

[BlueMak]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

Also I wonder whether Turkey is just too easy to conquer. Perhaps their army is not as large as it was historically or maybe they should have partisans, or perhaps their army is poorly positioned to defend the country - not sure but I doubt that Turkey would have been so easily conquered?

Don't confuse today's Turkey with the one 70 years ago.

[Zakhal]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

Also I wonder whether Turkey is just too easy to conquer. Perhaps their army is not as large as it was historically or maybe they should have partisans, or perhaps their army is poorly positioned to defend the country - not sure but I doubt that Turkey would have been so easily conquered?

In other similar scope games its usually the terrain that makes me not wanna try to conquer it.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: BlueMak

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

Also I wonder whether Turkey is just too easy to conquer. Perhaps their army is not as large as it was historically or maybe they should have partisans, or perhaps their army is poorly positioned to defend the country - not sure but I doubt that Turkey would have been so easily conquered?

Don't confuse today's Turkey with the one 70 years ago.

What about the Turkey of 1915 who's infantry went toe to toe with the very best infantry in the Commonwealth and fought them to the death?

Or the Turkish infantry that took on the Chinese in Korea and established a reputation for sheer madness that still resonates in Aisa.

I hadn't ever seen Turkey invaded and am desturbed to discover that they are easy to conquer. Perhaps the new OOB in ToW improves the situation. I'll take a look. NO ONE wanted to mess with the Turks in WWII. Although short of modern aircraft and armor, they should be a tough proposition to tackle.

[BlueMak]

What about Turkey that lost most of its possesions in a decade? What about Turkey that almost lost its capital to the greeks in 1919-1920? By the time of the WW2 Turkey was not a pushover, but it wasn't the great power that it once was or the modern (militarily at least) that it is today. A USSR or Germany of the time wouldn't have that much of a problem with it.

[James Ward]

I do think Turkey can fall pretty easily and it's a very strategic target who managed to avoid getting involved for the entire war.
Perhaps making them more difficult to conquer would help make them a less attractive target? Also allowing allies to assist neutral who are attacked on the very first turn of invasion might make a differance. Combine that with making North Africa more difficult for either side to take without major effort might make things more interesting. 

[jjdenver]

Well I'm not trying to say that it should not be possible to conquer Turkey but in a recent AAR a relatively small and low-tech German forces rolled through it in a few weeks to conquer it. Turkey is no stranger to war, and although there is a mixed history of success and failure - Turkey hasn't been conquered to my knowledge in probably 700 years. So I guess that there was a reason no one invaded Turkey in WW2 and Turkey has been through many wars but not conquered. The British found out at Gallipoli that Turkey has a very large population to arm and they are stubborn infantry on the defense.

In any case I think it might become standard play for the Axis to roll through Turkey in WW2:RTV and making it that much of a no-brainer decision is probably just about as bad for the game as the no-brainer "diplo-spain, take Gibraltar" that occurs regularly in the game. Both might be possible but shouldn't be such a sure, easy thing.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

Well I'm not trying to say that it should not be possible to conquer Turkey but in a recent AAR a relatively small and low-tech German forces rolled through it in a few weeks to conquer it. Turkey is no stranger to war, and although there is a mixed history of success and failure - Turkey hasn't been conquered to my knowledge in probably 700 years. So I guess that there was a reason no one invaded Turkey in WW2 and Turkey has been through many wars but not conquered. The British found out at Gallipoli that Turkey has a very large population to arm and they are stubborn infantry on the defense.

In any case I think it might become standard play for the Axis to roll through Turkey in WW2:RTV and making it that much of a no-brainer decision is probably just about as bad for the game as the no-brainer "diplo-spain, take Gibraltar" that occurs regularly in the game. Both might be possible but shouldn't be such a sure, easy thing.

I agree. The game should ot necessarily FORCE you to follow history but it should be difficult to try a non-historical way.
If there was a penalty, say +10-20% to unrest, for Germany declaring war on Turkey then you would really have to weigh the situation because un-rest doesn't go away as fas as I know and you pay the price for the rest of the game.
I think there should be more penalties like this to force you to protect things (like losing Egypt or German minor allies surrendering) that were politically and militarily valuable, things that the game system doesn't really address because of the way it's designed as the political system is pretty basic.

[cpdeyoung]

in a recent AAR a relatively small and low-tech German forces rolled through it in a few weeks to conquer it.

The forces included multiple air armies, multiple paratroop divisions and multiple Panzer Korps, and Panzer divisions. Almost all infantry was motorized. This force was state of the art, and was a major effort and committment of the Reich. Bulgaria was brought in for the purpose of basing for this invasion.

Turkey is no pushover and Istanbul alone presents a big challenge. It was tougher than it looked.

Chuck

[Michael the Pole]

Les, this has been a very interesting and usefull discussion![X(]

I think particular note should be taken of such ideas as the "manditory diplo takeover of Spain" and majur unrest penalties for the loss of colonies (such as Egypt) and Allies.

I have often thought that the dipomacy cost to turn Spain was too low, as has been discussed on this board, elsewhere. And Churchill met personally with the President of Turkey in 1944 following Yalta and was unable to bring Turkey into the war even with the combined diplomatic weight of the obviously victorious UK, USSR and the US behind him.

As we have also discussed, the loss of Egypt would have been a MAJOR blow to Churchill's government and should result in a major increase in unrest. The Fall of France should have a similar, if smaller, effect on the UK, as did the loss of Roumania, Finland, Bulgaria, etc., on Germany. The unrest penalty should result from the surrender of ALLIED states, jot just powers that are allied because they were invaded.

But as I have argued, the effect of "unrest" should culminate in a political coup or vote of no confidence as it did in France in 1940, with the resulting demand for an armistice, or could have in England in early 1942, or in an assanitation attempt as it did in Germany in 1944. This would result in a political victory in the war, and that is something we haven't explored, yet. France, Roumania, Bulgaria and Finland, to name just a few, all got out of the war before they were physically conquered. They surrendered, in effect when their "unrest" level got too high!

I also think we need to examine how the game reacts to invasions of minor powers. For instance, I believe that both sides should be able to invade friendly countries (probably with an attendant unrest increase to simulate the political cost.) After all, the Allies were literally a day behind the Germans in invading nuetral Norway. An invasion should automaticly throw the invaded country into the enemy camp. Had a situation once where Germany invaded the Baltic States in early 1940 and caught the Soviets with their thumbs up their ... Very unpleasant.

[Plainian]

Getting back on topic  which is the Qattara Depresion and how best to represent. I'm heartened to see that Doomtrader has shown an interest in possibly adding in this terrain to the next game. (I'll assume this is Wrath)
 
Is there plans to add any more terrain types?
Is there plans to allow players to mod terrain effects?
Is there any plans to add in terrain effects on the attacker?
 
At the moment terrain effects just appear to effect the defender? Defender in city gets +25% irrespective of what type he is and what type of units attack him either armoured or whatever? Small city or Industrial city it doen't matter either.
 
What would be nice if the game allowed a lot more terrain types (including cities) and also allowed players to change terrain effects for both attckers and defenders.
 
And just to go off topic it would be nice if cities could have setup switch which set them as non supply cities (minor?) so that we could have more of them on map without having to rework the supply network as it is in the main scenarios.

[Mike Parker]

Back to the Qattara Depression (though I am itching to comment on the Turkish debate) you wouldn't need to add a terrain type.  It should be completly impassable terrain.  Just modify the Map to remove those hexes and your set.  You create a nice bottleneck for the British 8th army to plug and make the assault on Egypt harder.  Although I suspect even if you did this, the relatively easy fall of Gibralter will make taking Egypt much easier than it should be in any case.
 
So in short just a (I think relatively easy) map change would do the trick.
 

[doomtrader]

Is there plans to add any more terrain types?

no

Is there plans to allow players to mod terrain effects?

ATM, you can change AP cost and defender bonus

Is there any plans to add in terrain effects on the attacker?

No, te terrain only affects defender

[BlueMak]

By forcing more and mroe changes to the game to unfold as it actualy happened, you might as well watch a documentary or read a book than play the game. I always thought most people (including myself) play this type of games to play with the what if scenarios. If you play the game knowining that X,Y,Z,etc things cannot happen or if they can happen they will only happen in 1949...then what is the point?
More historical accuracy doesn't make a better game, it makes a more boring game.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: BlueMak

By forcing more and mroe changes to the game to unfold as it actualy happened, you might as well watch a documentary or read a book than play the game. I always thought most people (including myself) play this type of games to play with the what if scenarios. If you play the game knowining that X,Y,Z,etc things cannot happen or if they can happen they will only happen in 1949...then what is the point?
More historical accuracy doesn't make a better game, it makes a more boring game.

Well with that mindset we could always implement the "Turtledove Scenario" and have the aliens appear and conquer the Soviet Union for Chuck. The last I heard, we're playing historical simulations and not science fiction. Painting a Challenger gray and calling it a Mark III, doesn't help anyone, except, perhaps, people who would be better off massaging their x box controller.