ORIGINAL: Tanaka
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...
This isn't 10 naval invasions. It's 1, and I will explain what I mean later in this post.
And yes, my multiple naval landings is weird I guess, but so is our WaW game where you playing Germany defeated France and didn't stop at the Pyrenees but continued on by taking out the pro-Axis state of Spain in 2 or 3 rounds then Gibralter. Was that really WW2 like? I even made an ingame joke about how cynical Hitler must be to stab Franco in the back like that.
Anyway, this thread is about micro-invasions with detachments, and I agree with you and the OP that that should be done away with just like the garrison micro-invasion exploit in WiE way back when.
This case with my landings all over the western Ottoman Empire's coast here in late 1916 was made to show another type of micro-landing..with Marines and Corps.
What I did was an Expensive project that might not bare fruit at all, or if not implemented right, could turn into out right disaster for me. Also, no one country of the Entente could do it alone, nor in a nilly-willy fashion. It had to happen at the Same Time....and only if conditions were right.
I had been surveillancing your coasts and ports of the Ottomans for sometime. and saw that you in fact had most of your rear area vulnerable spots covered from early 1915 onward. Its rolling towards 1917 and most of our fronts are in bloody gridlock on the West and East Fronts, quiet and frozen in the Alps, but getting a little wild in the Balkans (as usual lol) The different fronts the Entente has with the Ottomans, in the Caucasus, Sinai, and Kuwait are also pretty much deadlocked with some movement.
This is how it's been for sometime, when I hatched this scheme of doing a multi-faceted amphib approach against the Ottomans...the Sickman of Europe. This took lots of MMP's, Time,and Movements to set this up. It also required air recon with zeppelins and seaplane tenders at potential targets..with the object of taking Smyrna, Chanak, and Zondalak to breach the Dardanelles and isolate Istanbul from the rest of the Ottomans asiatic territories.
You had all the places targeted by me occupied by detachments or corps..and I was worried all my overflights would tip you off..then, for reasons known to you..they were empty..so all my Marines from disparate locations launched. This was one invasion, going after seperate targets, by relatively weak units like Marines in the vanguard. Even now, they are all separated with just weak links between them.
The reason I'm giving this example is to show that the Ottoman Empire is weak and over extended in this game, like it was historically. Taking away the amphib ability of detachments will help the imbalance that it creates towards the Turks..but the Ottoman Empire is what it is..frail, old, and ready to totter over!
One last thing..this fact about the Ottoman Empire's frail nature and my example of what the Entente can pull off against it in mid to late 1916 hammers home the importance of the Central Powers defeating Serbia EARLY, getting Bulgaria into the war, and thus linking it all together with the Ottomans. The rest of the CP can then send money and their own units down the railroad to help cover all the vulnerable holes and gaps in the Ottoman's hide.
Cheers
[:-]