After AH has surrendered...

[Joel Rauber]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

I agree and will make the necessary changes.

Frank I hope that as part of these changes you will require some Navy to be based in the port. Taking Scap Flow as an example. The British should be require to do something to prevent invasion of the East British coast.

Some have argued that requiring garrisoning by a corp is too much. For the eastern British coast I disagree. (I may agree regarding Wilhelmshaven, based on the arguement SMK made based on the nature of the German North Sea Coast and the Frisian Islands. But the east coast of Britain is not like that.

Regardless, at least require a British naval presence beyond a few destroyers and cruisers. (see my post above)


I think each candidate port for non-invasion needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. For example, I'd probably agree that New York and Halifax invasions should just be forbidden. OTOH, I don't think the US should be allowed to invade from New York either. Or the Canadians from Halifax.

[SMK-at-work]

IMO for the UK having the home fleet based anywhere in the UK would be sufficient to prevent any invasion.....and IMO the Home fleet shuoldn't be able to be based outside the UK, so that would solve the problem anyway [8D]

Riga could not be invaded because of the Islands in the Gulf of Riga restricting access and the passages being easily mined.

However for me the main reason for limiting invasions is simply that almost no-one had the ability to launch meaningful invasions......who's got enough shipping in the Black Sea to invade Sevastopol or Odessa?  Turkey?  Bulgaria??  They seem unlikely candidates.

The TE has the shipping and the "command of the high seas"..........and in the whole war they launch 4 invasinos - Iraq (Fao peninsular leading to Basra), German East Africa, Gallipoli and Salonika - 1 of these is to an essentially friendly port.  Gallipoli we probably know enough about, Fao was essentially unopposed - there was a for there but it seems to have fallen fairly easily.  Basra was taken a couple of weeks later after some fairly spirited fighting and "boys own" actions by the plucky Brits and Indians against superior numbers of Turks.

The East African one at Tanga in november 1914 was Lettow-Vorbecks first lesson to the empire!  (http://www.chakoten.dk/tanga_1914.html)

Salonika and Gallipoli are the only actions that come close to GoA scale tho......and IMO they show that there's more to a successful landing than just getting troops onto an enemy shore - both rapidly resulted in major supply problems and required vast nubmers of troops and shipping to keep "viable"

I guess if the supply at any invaded port was 0 (zero) then that might set up the required level of difficulty for the CP - it would ahve to get troops there, then maintain sea supply so they would be effective, plus you should have to have some sea supply to invade - ie you shouldn't be allowed to invade if your troops will be at 0 supply when they get there.  I don't know what it is at the moment, but starting at 0 would require considerable naval resource and present a suitably high bar IMO.

Oh and the Russians should get a dreadnought in each of Sevastopol and St Petersburg during the war too......4 Gangut class BB's were commissioned to the Baltic Fleet by December 1914, and October 1915 saw 2 Imperatritsa Mariya class BB's commissioned in the Black Sea Fleet

[SteveLohr]

SMK, thanks for the response. If there is a garrison requirement, I recommend that it be mentioned in the manual, along with the requirements. I was a bit peeved to find that 1/3 of the UK army disappeared, essentially ending my ability to threaten serious offensive action anywhere in the Med. Additionally, I would recommend that the player be given the choice of units to send. In garrisoning, frequently the lower quality units would be used, freeing up the higher quality units for additional offensive action.

[SteveLohr]

Joel, I personnaly like the more freedom for a variety of amphibous options that the game currently allows. Maybe its not strictly historical, but it does allow for alternative strategies. Sort of like what the old boardgame "Third Reich" did. In other words, it makes for a better game. However, one solution which may work to satisfy both the gamer and the realist, is to allow a "Harbo Defenses" option in the initial set up. The Harbor Defenses would represent mines and torpedo boats that in real life made much of the coastline of Europe essentially immune from amphibous invasion. If the option was selected during the initial set up, a player could purchase "Harbor Defenses" for particular harbors that would attack any amphibous shipping that entered them. They would automatically deteriorate each turn, but as they would be considered to be naval units they could be set on automatic refitting. In otherwords, a player could imunize his coastline, but at a cost in resources. And by making this a set up option, the player could decide whether he was playing a more "realistic" game, or a more free-wheeling game.

[Joel Rauber]

SMK makes some well reasoned arguements; but I think Steve Lohr is echoing some of my concerns. I think I'm just about convinced that Wilhelmshaven shouldn't be invaded; but that is not based on arguement about the port itself, but upon arguements based upon the nature of the nature of the entire German North Sea Coast.

Another factor is (Taking Britain for example), I think they should have to do something to defend the Island from invasion; it may be nothing more than basing a certain requisite number of ships in the ports they don't want invaded through the North Sea; I.e. Scapa Flow, London and Southampton.

There is two levels of realism to consider. It is certainly realistic that these countries had to worry at some level about the possibility of enemy Naval action; including invasions regardless of how realistic the threat; and I think this needs to be simulated to some degree in a strategic level game somehow; even at the price of some realism at the tactical level.

I recall visiting Fort Pulaski near Savannah, GA and seeing defence fortifications built in 1898 expressly for the purpose of fighting off the Spanish; probably at least as much if not more so of an unlikely event then some of what we are talking about. But the US felt that it was necessary to worry about it.

In game terms, if the German fleet manages to damage the British fleet significantly and successfully control the North Sea for several strategic impulses; I don't think its out of the realm of realism that given such a situation they could mount an invasion of the British Eastern Coast somewhere. I'd hate to see such a thing ruled out by game-rule fiat. Of course the odds of this happening are low in a game; but only because a reasonable British player would make sure its highly unlikely. And I see nothing wrong with the British having an important need to expend naval resources in the North Sea and maybe keeping a corp or two of their large army in home isles for "homeland" defence.

Say the Germans actually manage to land a corp or two in Britain; how long are they going to last given prudent British play??

[slieone123]

I just started to play and the First time as the TE I ran into the problem of not been able to attack germany except thrue Luxumberg.  So I thought maybe declare war on Holland then invade by sea then push down toward the German Cities.  I started a new game and declare war on Holland.  When I got to the movement phase I selected the Brits to bring them across I had complete control of the sea.  It told me I could not unless, Belgium, Holland, or Turkey was in the war.  Then the HQ for the Brits just disappeared from the Hex that I selected.  So do not know if this is a Glitch but could not bring none of the Brits over to the french coast.  I had over 8 ships selected for Transports mission. 
 
Slieone

[SMK-at-work]

the British are not allowed to do any amphibious operations in the 1st strategic phase if Germany does not invade Belgium IIRC - this because the invasion of Belgium was the trigger that bought the UK into the war.
 
so if yuo want to try something even more extreme...like the British invading Holland, you'll have to wait for eth 2nd strategic phase to do it.

[slieone123]

Thanks for explaining why i can't invade. But for some reason my Brit Hq just disappears from the game. I don't think that is Cool. Unless that is a punishment for trying to invade. [:-]

Slieone