Caucasus front setup

[shri]

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.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: shri

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

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 [:D]

[stockwellpete]

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.

[shri]

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.

[stockwellpete]

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.

[Patrat]

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.

[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.

[stockwellpete]

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. [:)]