Micro landings.
Moderator: MOD_Strategic_Command_3
RE: Micro landings.
Related to Ottoman morale I don't think Anatolian population care much about Levante. They care more about Enver Pasha food requisition.
RE: Micro landings.
The ottomans badly need a micro detachment, maybe 5 strength nearly immobile troops which move only 1 HEX, 1 attack and maybe 3 defense with entrenchment abilities so that the coast is protected. On that enormous coastline with a crappy navy its impossible to protect the coasts. That single railway line is so lonely that if cut and Aleppo falls its doomsday.
RE: Micro landings.
Playing my first game against the AI, and the AI led British engage in a micro landing against the Ottomans.
Is there no escape from this BS tactic, even against the AI? I am tremendously disappointed. Micro landings have ruined War in Europe PBEM, but it didn't happen right away and you could still play the AI and get a historical simulation.
It looks like it has been purposely written into this games AI. You leave me no way to enjoy playing this game. Whatever happened to history? Why does the AI have to go so far off the rails? Just to make it tougher to play against?
Maybe it would be possible to have the AI have 2 modes, "historical" and "tournament". I don't think I need to explain how the modes would differ. That way a player could get the experience they wanted without having to deal with things they don't.
Just an idea to try and make everyone happy.
Is there no escape from this BS tactic, even against the AI? I am tremendously disappointed. Micro landings have ruined War in Europe PBEM, but it didn't happen right away and you could still play the AI and get a historical simulation.
It looks like it has been purposely written into this games AI. You leave me no way to enjoy playing this game. Whatever happened to history? Why does the AI have to go so far off the rails? Just to make it tougher to play against?
Maybe it would be possible to have the AI have 2 modes, "historical" and "tournament". I don't think I need to explain how the modes would differ. That way a player could get the experience they wanted without having to deal with things they don't.
Just an idea to try and make everyone happy.
Lock up your wife and children now,
It's time to wield the blade..
It's time to wield the blade..
RE: Micro landings.
ORIGINAL: Markiss
Playing my first game against the AI, and the AI led British engage in a micro landing against the Ottomans.
I'd be interested to hear what happened after that!
I had the AI do a one-detachment landing on the Turkish coast, not near a port. I had two detachments fairly nearby, they ended up surrounding the town the British landed on, and eventually the British detachment was lost while out of supply with little loss to myself.
The MPP cost to the British was the cost of the detachment, plus the cost of transporting it. Mine was maybe 20% of that. Plus I ended up with a national morale bonus from destroying the detachment while out of supply.
My feeling was that it was an interesting thing for the AI to do, but not a successful one.
1985 Red Storm mod - Beta testing!
Always wanted to play a "Cold War goes hot" scenario? Come and join in!
Always wanted to play a "Cold War goes hot" scenario? Come and join in!
RE: Micro landings.
Nothing has happened yet, it just landed. I am sure I will kill it eventually, but only after I strip my other sorely stretched fronts of badly needed troops.
And then a turn later, the AI will land somewhere else, or at least it should. I have to bring 3-4 units to kill every one it lands. My units do not die, but they are dead to me for the duration of the operation. And the rail network in Turkey is far from complete, meaning that I am going to have to operate likely several turns march away, giving it plenty of time to grab additional cities, costing me more money and time.
Even if I win, I lose. And as soon as I get it all back, the AI will land somewhere else. Just like Italy in War in Europe, the Ottomans can't possibly cover every city. So it becomes a game of whack-a-mole.
Maybe the AI will not take it to that extent, but there is nothing to stop it from doing so, except maybe Hubert's kind heart. You will find no such kindness in PBEM.
I have thought about it, and one small thing that could be done to help the situation would be to reduce the land spotting of ships to 0 from 1. ZERO. This would prevent a player(or the AI) from using ships to cruise up and down an enemies shoreline looking for empty cities. And does it make sense that ships can spot units on land hexes anyway? What exactly can you see from a mile offshore? Between cliffs, buildings, vegetation, and ridges, you likely can't see more than a couple of hundred meters beyond the coast. How can you determine what is miles inland? It never made any sense.
Without knowing where the empty cities are, these landings become much more risky. Is there an army in that hex? If you want to be sure to take the city, you now have to bring more than one unit, and WA-LA, no more micro landings.
This would not stop it all, but it would at least be a step in the right direction, easy to implement, and make perfect sense.
And then a turn later, the AI will land somewhere else, or at least it should. I have to bring 3-4 units to kill every one it lands. My units do not die, but they are dead to me for the duration of the operation. And the rail network in Turkey is far from complete, meaning that I am going to have to operate likely several turns march away, giving it plenty of time to grab additional cities, costing me more money and time.
Even if I win, I lose. And as soon as I get it all back, the AI will land somewhere else. Just like Italy in War in Europe, the Ottomans can't possibly cover every city. So it becomes a game of whack-a-mole.
Maybe the AI will not take it to that extent, but there is nothing to stop it from doing so, except maybe Hubert's kind heart. You will find no such kindness in PBEM.
I have thought about it, and one small thing that could be done to help the situation would be to reduce the land spotting of ships to 0 from 1. ZERO. This would prevent a player(or the AI) from using ships to cruise up and down an enemies shoreline looking for empty cities. And does it make sense that ships can spot units on land hexes anyway? What exactly can you see from a mile offshore? Between cliffs, buildings, vegetation, and ridges, you likely can't see more than a couple of hundred meters beyond the coast. How can you determine what is miles inland? It never made any sense.
Without knowing where the empty cities are, these landings become much more risky. Is there an army in that hex? If you want to be sure to take the city, you now have to bring more than one unit, and WA-LA, no more micro landings.
This would not stop it all, but it would at least be a step in the right direction, easy to implement, and make perfect sense.
Lock up your wife and children now,
It's time to wield the blade..
It's time to wield the blade..
RE: Micro landings.
To deal with the AI is easy, as you mentioned it will probably destroy itself not landing in a town with a port under the "new" supply rules. At least you'll have to recognize the opportunity costs of occuppying a huge number of coastal towns, cities, NM-Objectives and mines; and of 2 corps in reserve. You can also add Jerusalem to the account against a human opponent.
And don't expect the AI to stop invading: (I'll upload the image of two more landings, as soon as the service is available again)
I did expect this development and quit playing before it finally happened. That's really sad, the PbEM has so much more to offer than playing the AI.
We're talking about a grand strategy title, and you'll have to micromanage never changing coastal defenses at first.
And don't expect the AI to stop invading: (I'll upload the image of two more landings, as soon as the service is available again)
Micro landings have ruined War in Europe PBEM, but it didn't happen right away and you could still play the AI and get a historical simulation.
I did expect this development and quit playing before it finally happened. That's really sad, the PbEM has so much more to offer than playing the AI.
We're talking about a grand strategy title, and you'll have to micromanage never changing coastal defenses at first.
RE: Micro landings.
ORIGINAL: The Land
ORIGINAL: Markiss
Playing my first game against the AI, and the AI led British engage in a micro landing against the Ottomans.
I'd be interested to hear what happened after that!
I had the AI do a one-detachment landing on the Turkish coast, not near a port. I had two detachments fairly nearby, they ended up surrounding the town the British landed on, and eventually the British detachment was lost while out of supply with little loss to myself.
The MPP cost to the British was the cost of the detachment, plus the cost of transporting it. Mine was maybe 20% of that. Plus I ended up with a national morale bonus from destroying the detachment while out of supply.
My feeling was that it was an interesting thing for the AI to do, but not a successful one.
Same. It was really easy to deal with.
RE: Micro landings.
As others, I found the one single British landing in the Levante quite interesting. It was easy to deal with militarily, although the troops nescessary to destroy the British unit in Aleppo required some shuffling on the Caucausus and Palestine fronts.
To me, it felt neither ahistorical (I must admit, that I even looked up whether there was a British landing in the Levante or not - given the bizarre folly that Gallipolli was, there might as well have been one), nor somehow detrimental to gameplay. Au contraire - it reminded me, that I cannot just place guards in Istanbul and wait for Gallipolli. Also, I later replied in Kind when the Bulgarians and Ottomans landed beyond the Black Sea in Russia.
To me, it felt neither ahistorical (I must admit, that I even looked up whether there was a British landing in the Levante or not - given the bizarre folly that Gallipolli was, there might as well have been one), nor somehow detrimental to gameplay. Au contraire - it reminded me, that I cannot just place guards in Istanbul and wait for Gallipolli. Also, I later replied in Kind when the Bulgarians and Ottomans landed beyond the Black Sea in Russia.
RE: Micro landings.
I too looked it up first to see if there was a historical landing that I was unaware of. It turns out that sending a few troops to land in random locations in Anatolia didn't sound like a good idea, even to Churchill. And it makes no sense. What would you gain but a headache? The supply line of such a force would be highly vulnerable to interdiction. The local troops in the area would simply seal it off and starve it out, and it would turn into a disaster.
The effect in the game is quite different, however. It MUST be countered with major forces. As long as the landing force is in a city, its supplies spontaneously generate. There are no supply lines to interdict. A game of this scale does not consider forces of less than a division in size, so the landing force gets a free pass until the opposing player operates in major units.
It is simply a hole in the game. A hole that is being exploited by a few to the detriment of many, and now even the AI has become part of the problem, adding legitimacy to this awful practice.
And the point is not that it is impossible to deal with, but that I have no option but to deal with it. Historical game play is not possible, even with the AI.
And that is a shame.
Last thing, when countries like Britain and Germany get invaded, they immediately get a windfall of home guard troops. If by invading the Ottomans you gave them 600-700 points worth of free troops, it might change someone's mind about invading.
The effect in the game is quite different, however. It MUST be countered with major forces. As long as the landing force is in a city, its supplies spontaneously generate. There are no supply lines to interdict. A game of this scale does not consider forces of less than a division in size, so the landing force gets a free pass until the opposing player operates in major units.
It is simply a hole in the game. A hole that is being exploited by a few to the detriment of many, and now even the AI has become part of the problem, adding legitimacy to this awful practice.
And the point is not that it is impossible to deal with, but that I have no option but to deal with it. Historical game play is not possible, even with the AI.
And that is a shame.
Last thing, when countries like Britain and Germany get invaded, they immediately get a windfall of home guard troops. If by invading the Ottomans you gave them 600-700 points worth of free troops, it might change someone's mind about invading.
Lock up your wife and children now,
It's time to wield the blade..
It's time to wield the blade..
-
BillRunacre
- Posts: 6619
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
- Contact:
RE: Micro landings.
Hi Markiss
It was suggested a number of times to the British that they land in the area of southern Anatolia/northern Syria to a) cut the railroad to Palestine and Medina and b) that thousands of Armenians would rise up and join the invaders.
That this wasn't done is not necessarily a reflection of the impracticality of the project, more one of a lack of available resources coupled with the failure in the Dardanelles putting everyone off attempting further amphibious landings (and Churchill was very much out of favour after that).
Arguably, a landing in this area might have been more effective than the one at Gallipoli, and if the Armenians had lived up to their promises then it wouldn't have required a large force of troops to cause the Ottomans a major headache.
To help counter it the Ottomans do have forces in this region. Keep them here and the invasion should be fairly easy to contain, but if they are moved away then the consequences could be severe.
In answer to your question about free units, the Ottomans do have four events scripted for units to mobilize to defend key places in what is now Turkey should Entente units approach them, but not for the areas further south. These areas were hotbeds of sedition, for not only were the Armenians conspiring but also many Arabs (the Ottomans clamped down on Arab activists in Syria early in the war, executing many leading figures). So really any units to defend these areas would have to come from elsewhere rather than being raised locally.
This isn't to say that changes can't/won't be made in this area.
Additionally, your suggestion that ships shouldn't be able to spot previously unseen land units makes sense to me, so it's something I'll think about further.
Bill
It was suggested a number of times to the British that they land in the area of southern Anatolia/northern Syria to a) cut the railroad to Palestine and Medina and b) that thousands of Armenians would rise up and join the invaders.
That this wasn't done is not necessarily a reflection of the impracticality of the project, more one of a lack of available resources coupled with the failure in the Dardanelles putting everyone off attempting further amphibious landings (and Churchill was very much out of favour after that).
Arguably, a landing in this area might have been more effective than the one at Gallipoli, and if the Armenians had lived up to their promises then it wouldn't have required a large force of troops to cause the Ottomans a major headache.
To help counter it the Ottomans do have forces in this region. Keep them here and the invasion should be fairly easy to contain, but if they are moved away then the consequences could be severe.
In answer to your question about free units, the Ottomans do have four events scripted for units to mobilize to defend key places in what is now Turkey should Entente units approach them, but not for the areas further south. These areas were hotbeds of sedition, for not only were the Armenians conspiring but also many Arabs (the Ottomans clamped down on Arab activists in Syria early in the war, executing many leading figures). So really any units to defend these areas would have to come from elsewhere rather than being raised locally.
This isn't to say that changes can't/won't be made in this area.
Additionally, your suggestion that ships shouldn't be able to spot previously unseen land units makes sense to me, so it's something I'll think about further.
Bill
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware
We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
RE: Micro landings.
Thanks for the consideration Bill, the responsiveness of the developers is one of the things that makes this game series great.
And of course I moved the unit, as I did not expect this sort of tactic from the AI. Again, it happening once is not game breaking, just annoying. But if it happens over and over, it could be game deciding, which I think would be wrong.
I am just trying to stop this game from becoming War in Europe, where especially as Axis, how you handle the inevitable early micro landings is absolutely game deciding. If you don't move German forces into Italy in early 1940, Italy will surrender by mid-1940. And if you do move in German forces, and also cover the German North Sea coast against landings, you no longer have enough forces left to take France, which is exactly where my current game is at. It is August 1940, and the Axis are already finished as a direct result of micro landings, actual and threatened. It really shouldn't end like that, as don't think that happening was even the remotest historical possibility. Yet, in this game, it will happen every time unless I can think of some way to deal with it.
And of course I moved the unit, as I did not expect this sort of tactic from the AI. Again, it happening once is not game breaking, just annoying. But if it happens over and over, it could be game deciding, which I think would be wrong.
I am just trying to stop this game from becoming War in Europe, where especially as Axis, how you handle the inevitable early micro landings is absolutely game deciding. If you don't move German forces into Italy in early 1940, Italy will surrender by mid-1940. And if you do move in German forces, and also cover the German North Sea coast against landings, you no longer have enough forces left to take France, which is exactly where my current game is at. It is August 1940, and the Axis are already finished as a direct result of micro landings, actual and threatened. It really shouldn't end like that, as don't think that happening was even the remotest historical possibility. Yet, in this game, it will happen every time unless I can think of some way to deal with it.
Lock up your wife and children now,
It's time to wield the blade..
It's time to wield the blade..
RE: Micro landings.
As for naval units land spotting:
When did they start putting Sea Planes on Capital ships?
Or rather, if Dreadnaughts have them in this time period maybe they should get land vision but no other ships.
When did they start putting Sea Planes on Capital ships?
Or rather, if Dreadnaughts have them in this time period maybe they should get land vision but no other ships.
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
RE: Micro landings.
I considered this, but the planes on these ships are not built for strategic recon. They are short-range sea planes with very unreliable methods of launch and retrieval.
The people who designed these ships envisioned a grand fleet action that would decide the war. As the fleets approached each other, the ships that carried planes would launch them for the purpose of hovering over the target ship and calling back precise gunnery adjustments based upon the fall of shot observed by the plane.
These planes were never intended to fly over the horizon, much less deep into enemy territory recording troop locations. And they really were one-use, the chances of actually recovering one in all but the calmest weather were low.
So I do not believe that these planes really figure into the equation. They are really part of the gunnery system for the ships they are on.
The people who designed these ships envisioned a grand fleet action that would decide the war. As the fleets approached each other, the ships that carried planes would launch them for the purpose of hovering over the target ship and calling back precise gunnery adjustments based upon the fall of shot observed by the plane.
These planes were never intended to fly over the horizon, much less deep into enemy territory recording troop locations. And they really were one-use, the chances of actually recovering one in all but the calmest weather were low.
So I do not believe that these planes really figure into the equation. They are really part of the gunnery system for the ships they are on.
Lock up your wife and children now,
It's time to wield the blade..
It's time to wield the blade..
RE: Micro landings.
Wishlist:
Can we limit the total number of expeditionary corps at-least?
I am quite sure historically all the minors + Russia + AH + Italy did not have the capabilities to launch such expeditions.
Only Germany, France and of-course UK could.
So, maybe they should launch but maybe the cost to equip can be substantially increased to decrease gamey tactics to cripple the already poor Ottomans.
Historically, the Ottomans surrendered well after Russia and even forced the British to surrender at Kut under von der Goltz's leadership.
Can we limit the total number of expeditionary corps at-least?
I am quite sure historically all the minors + Russia + AH + Italy did not have the capabilities to launch such expeditions.
Only Germany, France and of-course UK could.
So, maybe they should launch but maybe the cost to equip can be substantially increased to decrease gamey tactics to cripple the already poor Ottomans.
Historically, the Ottomans surrendered well after Russia and even forced the British to surrender at Kut under von der Goltz's leadership.
RE: Micro landings.
ORIGINAL: Taxman66
As for naval units land spotting:
When did they start putting Sea Planes on Capital ships?
Or rather, if Dreadnaughts have them in this time period maybe they should get land vision but no other ships.
I don't think any of the warships of this era had spotter-planes. There were float-plane-carriers, and eventually aircraft carriers, but dreadnoughts did not carry aircraft.
American Front: a Work-in-progress CSA v USA Turtledove mod for SC:WW1 can be seen here.
-
Benedict151
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:16 am
RE: Micro landings.
Actually dreadnoughts did carry planes later in the war... admittedly they were a 'one shot weapon' in that the plane could be launched (via a flying off platform mounted on one of the turrets) but not recovered (the pilot would have to ditch next to a friendly ship and be picked up!) so were of limited use... but it does give a battlefleet a little more recon ability.
Sorry, I have a 'thing' about WW1 naval warfare.
regards
Ben
Sorry, I have a 'thing' about WW1 naval warfare.
regards
Ben
RE: Micro landings.
ORIGINAL: Sugar
Boys, what kind of strategists are you? [8D]
I'm talking about strategical impact to the supply and income situation in the whole Middle East. While the income isn't much of an issue (since the production of cities is limited to 6 now), the supply surely is. A combined operation lead by a single det. leads to the drop of supply by 2 points. Your opponent will know where your HQ is located, and guess what will be the target for his strat. bombers or shore bombardements.
And how many det.s do you need to prevent a single det. from invading? Now that's a cost-benefit ratio! You also can't just ignore any landings, with all those nice NM-Objectives in the second row. I'd prefer to research trenches with the Ottos instead of buying all the available det.s just for garrison purposes for the rest of the game, sadly I'm forced to do so, in PbEM at least.
Bringing this thread back after experiencing this in my current game. I completely agree with Sugar. If the only choice for Ottomans is to buy every detachment available to defend against naval invasions then where is the strategy of choice if you are railroaded into this being your only option?
RE: Micro landings.
ORIGINAL: HvS
[center][font="Times New Roman"]To me it appears the easiest consensus is to do the same thing to detachments as to garrisons in WaW: do not allow them to do amphib landings.
This should solve the worst problems.. and if a player decides to let a corps drop in the Levante, he has to pay the full price.[/font][/center]
Agreed! This seems the best solution!
-
OldCrowBalthazor
- Posts: 2765
- Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:42 am
- Location: Republic of Cascadia
RE: Micro landings.
ORIGINAL: Tanaka
ORIGINAL: HvS
[center][font="Times New Roman"]To me it appears the easiest consensus is to do the same thing to detachments as to garrisons in WaW: do not allow them to do amphib landings.
This should solve the worst problems.. and if a player decides to let a corps drop in the Levante, he has to pay the full price.[/font][/center]
Agreed! This seems the best solution!
Tanaka, this is on the whole what you have experienced in our current match. I have used mostly CORPS and MARINES,with a few detachments. With FoW on, you may not have realized this, and thought that I wantonly threw detachments all over your coast. Like I have said before, I generally don't like to use detachments in that way except in certain circumstances, as the following will illustrate:
Operation Goathead Soup Phase 1: (was written in my notebook when planning this haha)
1) I AVed an Italian CORP through that raging sea battle in the Adriatic to take Split and deny you a port.
2) A French MARINE AVed and took Smyrna, severely damaging the Ottoman BB in port. Smyrna had been under aerial surveillance for quite a long time and saw that it was garrisoned through most of the war..till just before this operation was launched. The French marine had been stationed on Rhodes since Italy got in the war.
3) A British MARINE AVed at Chanak to close the Dardanelles and stop any interference by CP vessels in the Sea of Marmara.
Operation Goathead Soup Phase 2: (next 3 turns)
4) A British DETACHMENT is AVed near Alexandretta..taking the town. Intention is to cut the Levant RR next turn.
5) A French CAVALRY unit is transported to Smyrna. The intention is to link with Chanak or disrupt the Ottomans lines of communication.
6) A Russian MARINE is AVed to Zondalak, taking the port and damaging the Ottoman DD there. This one was tricky, having to be escorted by the Russian Navy because of an Ottoman sub and possible other ships.
7) A British DETACHMENT is AVed to the south Anatolian coast to cut the RR. It hunkers down and entrenches. (third turn).
8) A Russian CORP is transported to Zongalak to secure the town..the Russian Marine moves inland to capture the mine and interdict the RR near Ankara.
So, this was the wave of sea landings you suffered Tanaka composing a total of the following:
1 CORP (IT)
1 CORP (RU)
1 CAVALRY (FR)
1 MARINE (UK)
1 MARINE (FR)
1 MARINE (RU)
1 DETACHMENT (UK)
1 DETACHMENT (UK)
1 MARINE (IT) in reserve at a undisclosed location
I'm illustrating this to show that we need to think carefully about changing the current mechanic. I could of not used the detachments..but the effects on the Sultan's domains would still be pretty severe. To Amphib and transport these units was very expensive. I personally think we could do away with allowing detachments to be able to move amphibiously, but then again, some could argue a legitimate reason why detachments should continue to be able to use this function.
Cheers
Edit: We could make HvS's suggestion a house rule in any future matches. [8D]
My YouTube Channel: Balthazor's Strategic Arcana
https://www.youtube.com/c/BalthazorsStrategicArcana
SC-War in the Pacific Beta Tester
SC-ACW Beta Tester
1904 Imperial Sunrise Tester
SC-WW1 Empires in Turmoil DLC Tester
Tester of various SC Mods
https://www.youtube.com/c/BalthazorsStrategicArcana
SC-War in the Pacific Beta Tester
SC-ACW Beta Tester
1904 Imperial Sunrise Tester
SC-WW1 Empires in Turmoil DLC Tester
Tester of various SC Mods
RE: Micro landings.
ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor
ORIGINAL: Tanaka
ORIGINAL: HvS
[center][font="Times New Roman"]To me it appears the easiest consensus is to do the same thing to detachments as to garrisons in WaW: do not allow them to do amphib landings.
This should solve the worst problems.. and if a player decides to let a corps drop in the Levante, he has to pay the full price.[/font][/center]
Agreed! This seems the best solution!
Tanaka, this is on the whole what you have experienced in our current match. I have used mostly CORPS and MARINES,with a few detachments. With FoW on, you may not have realized this, and thought that I wantonly threw detachments all over your coast. Like I have said before, I generally don't like to use detachments in that way except in certain circumstances, as the following will illustrate:
Operation Goathead Soup Phase 1: (was written in my notebook when planning this haha)
1) I AVed an Italian CORP through that raging sea battle in the Adriatic to take Split and deny you a port.
2) A French MARINE AVed and took Smyrna, severely damaging the Ottoman BB in port. Smyrna had been under aerial surveillance for quite a long time and saw that it was garrisoned through most of the war..till just before this operation was launched. The French marine had been stationed on Rhodes since Italy got in the war.
3) A British MARINE AVed at Chanak to close the Dardanelles and stop any interference by CP vessels in the Sea of Marmara.
Operation Goathead Soup Phase 2: (next 3 turns)
4) A British DETACHMENT is AVed near Alexandretta..taking the town. Intention is to cut the Levant RR next turn.
5) A French CAVALRY unit is transported to Smyrna. The intention is to link with Chanak or disrupt the Ottomans lines of communication.
6) A Russian MARINE is AVed to Zondalak, taking the port and damaging the Ottoman DD there. This one was tricky, having to be escorted by the Russian Navy because of an Ottoman sub and possible other ships.
7) A British DETACHMENT is AVed to the south Anatolian coast to cut the RR. It hunkers down and entrenches. (third turn).
8) A Russian CORP is transported to Zongalak to secure the town..the Russian Marine moves inland to capture the mine and interdict the RR near Ankara.
So, this was the wave of sea landings you suffered Tanaka composing a total of the following:
1 CORP (IT)
1 CORP (RU)
1 CAVALRY (FR)
1 MARINE (UK)
1 MARINE (FR)
1 MARINE (RU)
1 DETACHMENT (UK)
1 DETACHMENT (UK)
1 MARINE (IT) in reserve at a undisclosed location
I'm illustrating this to show that we need to think carefully about changing the current mechanic. I could of not used the detachments..but the effects on the Sultan's domains would still be pretty severe. To Amphib and transport these units was very expensive. I personally think we could do away with allowing detachments to be able to move amphibiously, but then again, some could argue a legitimate reason why detachments should continue to be able to use this function.
Cheers
Edit: We could make HvS's suggestion a house rule in any future matches. [8D]
But is 10 naval invasions really WW1 like? You have done nothing wrong and are as always are a very crafty opponent. It just feels weird in a WW1 game. And as Ottomans being railroaded into buying every detachment available to defend against it before choosing anything else kind of takes away from a strategy of choices. Taking away the ability to land garrisons would at least help a little with this. I don't really like house rules as I want to play with the engine at hand but if everyone seems to think this is the way it should be then I will defend against it next time...