Taking control of hexes in a surrendered Ottoman empire?
In my current “The Churchill plan” game vs. Raynald the sneaky Central Powers went into Constantinople taking control of the Hex after the Ottoman Empire surrendered.
That dastardly plot sort of wrecked the whole point of me knocking out the Ottomans but live and learn I always say.
A weird problem has occurred however, after slugging all the way across Anatolia some hexes occupied by my troops are suddenly noted as being CP control despite occupied by me. Even when spending an offensive I’m unable to move into said hexes meaning I shall never ever have the chance to retake the city and sort of wasting the whole point of the effort.
I have a saved game.
Taking control of hexes in a surrendered Ottoman empire?
Moderator: SeanD
RE: Taking control of hexes in a surrendered Ottoman empire?
That seems kind of "gamey" on the part of your opponent to do that. It's one thing if he navally invades a hex you captured from Turkey, but I think that doing this by ground is kind of abusing a flawed game mechanic.
RE: Taking control of hexes in a surrendered Ottoman empire?
In the "real world", why wouldn't the Central Powers do this? After all, if the Entente did not properly garrison a conquered nation, it should be ripe for the picking for the CP to march right in and setup shop (with or without the Turkish government's approval).
Doesn't seem "gamed" to me. Nor flawed. It would a flawed mechanic if knocking out a country automatically turns that formerly playable territory into a Switzerland-like void on the map, untouchable even if undefended....
//TB
Doesn't seem "gamed" to me. Nor flawed. It would a flawed mechanic if knocking out a country automatically turns that formerly playable territory into a Switzerland-like void on the map, untouchable even if undefended....
//TB
RE: Taking control of hexes in a surrendered Ottoman empire?
Oh I completely agree. Nothing wrong with him marching into Constantinople with the Bulgarians. (I’m sure the Bulgarians are only too happy to size the city.
It makes sense that a defeated Ottoman Empire is unable to defend her neutrality and is open to occupation. I should have checked before leaving the city open. My problem is simply that I should be allowed to counterattack and retake the city.
It makes sense that a defeated Ottoman Empire is unable to defend her neutrality and is open to occupation. I should have checked before leaving the city open. My problem is simply that I should be allowed to counterattack and retake the city.
RE: Taking control of hexes in a surrendered Ottoman empire?
My problem is simply that I should be allowed to counterattack and retake the city.
Agreed. That is definately an issue...
//TB
RE: Taking control of hexes in a surrendered Ottoman empire?
ORIGINAL: esteban
That seems kind of "gamey" on the part of your opponent to do that. It's one thing if he navally invades a hex you captured from Turkey, but I think that doing this by ground is kind of abusing a flawed game mechanic.
I can't believe I'm reading this, I don't understand. What would have been a historical possible reaction according to you ?
Oh I completely agree. Nothing wrong with him marching into Constantinople with the Bulgarians. (I’m sure the Bulgarians are only too happy to size the city.
For the record, it was the mighty Austrians with Bulgarian help.
It makes sense that a defeated Ottoman Empire is unable to defend her neutrality and is open to occupation. I should have checked before leaving the city open. My problem is simply that I should be allowed to counterattack and retake the city.
Exactly. Note that I fully expected to have to fight to take it (since I didn't react immediatly) or to defend it.
Ni pour, ni contre, bien au contraire.
RE: Taking control of hexes in a surrendered Ottoman empire?
This is no different than the Entente continuing advancing through surrendered AH territory late in the historic war.
Hit them where they aren't
RE: Taking control of hexes in a surrendered Ottoman empire?
My reaction is that it is gamey for the CP player to do this when the TE player cannot do the same thing. Thats abusing a bug in the game and the CP player should be good enough to let the TE player keep Constantinople under those circumstances.
So yes, its "gamey" to do something that the TE cannot respond to do to a flaw in the design of the game.
So yes, its "gamey" to do something that the TE cannot respond to do to a flaw in the design of the game.
RE: Taking control of hexes in a surrendered Ottoman empire?
ORIGINAL: esteban
My reaction is that it is gamey for the CP player to do this when the TE player cannot do the same thing. Thats abusing a bug in the game and the CP player should be good enough to let the TE player keep Constantinople under those circumstances.
So yes, its "gamey" to do something that the TE cannot respond to do to a flaw in the design of the game.
Looks like you don't know what you are talking about, but this is our fault since part of the discussion is located somewhere else (AAR Churchill's plan).
So : the bug was discovered AFTER Constantinople was taken back by the CP, not BEFORE (hell, we weren't even sure about the effect of a CP controlled Constaninople with a OE flag !) Furthermore, the Entente is currently 2 hex away from the Constantinople both in the European and Asian side.
The somewhat gamey part of all of this, i.e. an ahistorical action from a player that the other player can't counter (a design flaw) is the heavy mobilisation around the OE and the DOW on the OE in August 14. The official patch changed that (a little) but we began our game before it was out.
By the way, we have not heard about it yet but I wouldn't be surprised to see that after the Entente "OE first" will come the CP "Italy first". Imagine how quickly an all out offensive against Italy in August 14 would kill this country (taking a lot of VP, a couple of ressource, and killing a navy in the process). You would have to forget an early offensive in the west, but you could easily defend in the east against the Russians.
Ni pour, ni contre, bien au contraire.
RE: Taking control of hexes in a surrendered Ottoman empire?
Raynald has been an exemplary opponent and a sporting chap throughout even graciously allowing me to cancel a move I send him after I counted my losses in the 1915 offensive an found out just how fast I was killing the Anglo-French army.
His only flaw is that he starts moving far to late in the evening.
So where is my move?
Ah well, I’ll go write a bit more on my AAR while he has a life.
His only flaw is that he starts moving far to late in the evening.
So where is my move?
Ah well, I’ll go write a bit more on my AAR while he has a life.
RE: Taking control of hexes in a surrendered Ottoman empire?
Ok, its not "gamey" if you didn't know about the bug beforehand. But considering the bug is in place you should evacuate Constantinople and let the Allies move in troops. Have him keep 4 full strength corps in Constantinople as the "OE garrison", allow no advances out of Constantinople for the Allied player. In return, you pick up the rest of Turkish Thrace in return (so you get a food hex) and then "demilitarize" the area. That way the bug doesn't affect the game much, the TE player gets his reward for taking out OE but has to keep several corps there as a garrison, and no TE offensives are launched out of OE territory against Bulgaria.
That seems to be a good compromise under the circumstances.
As for going after Italy first, my reaction as the TE player would be "please do". You would have to conduct the invasion with mostly Germany forces Since the Austrians would get creamed in Galicia if they pulled enough troops from Serbia and the Russian border to conduct the offensive themselves. That means that the Austrians would place at least 3-4 corps to protect Trieste. Then you either declare war on Italy in August 1914 and wait for the Germans to make the two impulse march from Bavaria to the Italian border (and the Italians can move forward into Trent and the adjacent hexes unless the Austrians put more than 3-4 corps in to protect the border). Either that, or you move the Germans into place from Bavaria in August 1914, then declare war on Italy in the September/October turn. But that delays your offensive a couple impulses and allows the French and Brits a chance to start naval and strategic moving in troops to help out the Italians.
So you pretty much lose your shot at destroying France or Russia without a long and painful campaign, lose any chance to take Serbia out of the game in 1914 and possibly tick off the United States a little bit when invading neutral Italy.
This in return for a second-rate major power that the TE doesn't "need". The CP needs the OE, because its the only country they have that has spare raw materials to feed German industry. So taking out the OE hits the German war effort hard. To the TE, Italy is not nearly as important because its navy is decent but smaller than France's or Britains, it doesn't provide any resources to the TE that can't be got through other means and its army is mostly useful for taking a few Austrian and Bavarian cities that will only be taken if the Germans or Austrians are pretty much completely tied down with Russia and France anyway.
Also, taking out the OE early on draws in so many Russian troops that it forestalls any Russian attack to save France or Serbia or to have enough troops to effectively defend Russian territory if the CP hits Russia first instead of France.
That seems to be a good compromise under the circumstances.
As for going after Italy first, my reaction as the TE player would be "please do". You would have to conduct the invasion with mostly Germany forces Since the Austrians would get creamed in Galicia if they pulled enough troops from Serbia and the Russian border to conduct the offensive themselves. That means that the Austrians would place at least 3-4 corps to protect Trieste. Then you either declare war on Italy in August 1914 and wait for the Germans to make the two impulse march from Bavaria to the Italian border (and the Italians can move forward into Trent and the adjacent hexes unless the Austrians put more than 3-4 corps in to protect the border). Either that, or you move the Germans into place from Bavaria in August 1914, then declare war on Italy in the September/October turn. But that delays your offensive a couple impulses and allows the French and Brits a chance to start naval and strategic moving in troops to help out the Italians.
So you pretty much lose your shot at destroying France or Russia without a long and painful campaign, lose any chance to take Serbia out of the game in 1914 and possibly tick off the United States a little bit when invading neutral Italy.
This in return for a second-rate major power that the TE doesn't "need". The CP needs the OE, because its the only country they have that has spare raw materials to feed German industry. So taking out the OE hits the German war effort hard. To the TE, Italy is not nearly as important because its navy is decent but smaller than France's or Britains, it doesn't provide any resources to the TE that can't be got through other means and its army is mostly useful for taking a few Austrian and Bavarian cities that will only be taken if the Germans or Austrians are pretty much completely tied down with Russia and France anyway.
Also, taking out the OE early on draws in so many Russian troops that it forestalls any Russian attack to save France or Serbia or to have enough troops to effectively defend Russian territory if the CP hits Russia first instead of France.