Stack limits

[BenTaylor]

It was mentioned in WaW that Gibraltar was a problem since Wallies could pack in units and unrealistically invade Spain.

This was well countered in AWD with the requirement to amphibiously assault Spain from Gib.

I wonder now about the tactical defence of Gib in that it is possible to put unlimited units there even if offense to Spain is controlled.

Since units are supposed to be very roughly a Corps it seems there should be some limit on what can be put there. It is like the difference between 1 or 2 mil there versus loads plus armour etc. It really is crazy to have large numbers of potential units there capable of tactical battle.

I realise this further complicates the game but it would realistically reflect what Germany might face if it invaded (or any country). So even a capture would involve choosing a few units of any that survived to actually occupy Gib.

It might be possible to have large stacks there with most considered as strategically present so that they would not take part in combat. This reflects the base as a transport point, they would be there rather as if in a transport. I don't really object to a bunch of Wallie units invading say Vichy Morocco from Gib, that is quite alot different to expecting they could really defend the same area properly unless they also occupied Spanish hinterland beyond the rock.

Not sure how a takeover of the area would be handled for damage purposes with such a "transport" capacity.

I realise it is complicated but how can we treat Gib as equivalent to say Kazakstan or even England for manoeuvre battle.
Gib is like the size of one little lump of England that might have been invaded.

The only difference might be that if a player controls both Spain and Gibraltar a higher stack might be possible. It is how to relflect what could be achieved in the abstraction of the game.

There is a similar problem with Malta.

Any ideas?

[WanderingHead]

I'd not be inclined to put stacking limits anywhere. But you can always house rule it.

[BenTaylor]

What would be a reasonable capacity for Gib?

[christian brown]

2 units of all types (excluding naval forces) seems "realistic" but 3 is probably more playable.....I think something like 40,000 guys could be reasonably expected to be jammed into that place, if you consider that only 5~10,000 would be required to man an air unit, that leaves another 30,000 to flesh out an army corps...bottom line is that someone ought to be able to have fighters and bombers plus a land contingent, that seems about right.
thoughts?

[BenTaylor]

I was thinking max maybe 2 art, 2 aa, 2 other land.

On grounds that I suppose it would be easier to increase the artillery and flak in Gib than infantry.

Not sure about air.

[Mithel]

In my opinion certain locations like Gibraltar and Malta should have "stacking limits" otherwise these strategic locations can spiral into becoming unrealistically large battles or absurdly large garrisons just to prevent invasion.

[BenTaylor]

Mithel

That is where I agree. I think it is too easy for Allies to use these as artifical choke points - mainly at Gib. I think it is more reasonable to see that Gib could house a large invasion force due for say North Africa, but as it is the game can't consider these forces as "strategically" present as if in a transport.

I can't give an expert view but when there are say absolute hoards of stuff in Gib it is a bit silly. The troops wouldn't have room to fight!

[Mithel]

Pull up a google satellite view of Gibraltar.  It's tiny.  Standing shoulder to shoulder it might be difficult to fit 20,000 men (not to mention their equipment.  Gibraltar is roughly 6.5 square kilometers. Typically a division in WW2 deployed covering 500 square kilometers. Malta naturally is a bit larger (316 sq km).  The current population of Malta is about 400,000 civilians.  However I doubt 20 divisions could have been stationed there in WW2 and fight effectively (that would be very dense deployment).

[BenTaylor]

Mithel

Don't forget armies deployed in an urban environment are different to in open country - but really I am agreeing.

I just can't put a number on it easily for the game.

I assume that you could put troops, flak and artillery there for sure because that reflects real capability that existed there - if we can just forget about how many troops each of these is in real life just 4 a minute.

There are documents about this is the UK national archive but I would have to take a trip or pay quite alot for digital copies.

According to wikipedia with the tunnels built by 1942 (and all the spoil used for reclamation on the seashore) Gib had 30,000 forces but that included air and navy. Also an interesting article at http://stonebooks.com/history/felix.shtml about it.

That dosen't add up to much in AWD does it, probably only one of each AA, ART INF.

I am not sure how you can keep this balanced and yet stop ridiculous looking garrisons occurring. Basically it should be easier for the axis to invade, certainly by land.

A related point is whether the demands that Franco made for Spanish involvement could be modelled in the game rather than just passively set at the political event. Vichy Morocco and maybe Algeria become frozen Spanish (maybe Germans get the straits part), Germany have to give up a certain number of units or supply (representing arms transfer to Spain, units would be disbanded in game turns, just disappear) and maybe Germany transfers resource back every turn. If that happens certain amount of existing Geran units automatically get set up in addition to Spanish forces in Axis Spain, ready for attack, so it can happen at start of German turn. Or similar.

[Mithel]

Interesting write up in the link you provided.  The actual assault force reads as two regiments backed up by artillery.

I haven' delved into AWD yet so I don't know the game system's technical details.  This is a common problem in my opinion in all global WW2 simulations.  This type of a location shouldn't have large force sizes but it should be difficult to assault and thus a small garrison should be able to successfully defend against a reasonable assault.

Essentially we have the problem of desiring small forces battling over small locations yet most game designs encourage you to succeed by pouring in more troops (the old "bigger is always better").  But bigger isn't always better because if you crammed more defenders into a limited area like Gibraltar they would just take a higher casualty rate from enemy artillery and wouldn't significantly add to the defensive strength.

[BenTaylor]

Maybe part of the balance is that only a certain size of attacking units from land and sea can attack Gibraltar.

Say 3 land (and 1 sea - seeing as once again we can't compare an amphibious attack on western France as equivalent to a landing near Gib).

This kind of thing might also help the Pacific campaign because the ratios of attack at Japanese garrsion islands might also be limitable i.e. stack limits on island and "invasion forces" stack limits irrespective of amphibious rating.