Matrix Games Forums

If Entente transports can arrive in the Persian Gulf, should not Entente warships be able to deploy there too...Or travel there through some off the map route.....

Historically, I don't know the answer...

Gamewise, I'd like an answer...

The naval - history site below; shows a chronalogical history to military actions in the Persian Gulf region during WW1. It's easy to read and includes a number of little known actions there during the war. If you have the time check it out.

My primary mission is; to show the existence of the English navy in the Persian Gulf, and ask WHY it is not represented in the game?


http://www.naval-history.net/WW1Battle1 ... otamia.htm


Below is an opening paragraph about the Persian Gulf;

NAVAL CAMPAIGN IN OUTLINE


1914



Friday 23 October 1914



Because of increasing Turkish hostility, British/Indian forces were dispatched to protect British oil interests in the Persian Gulf area, and arrived off Bahrein ready to land





Friday 6 November 1914



British/Indian forces started to land in Mesopotamia from the Persian Gulf supported by old battleship Ocean (Capt Hayes-Sadler), sloops Odin, Espiegle, and including Government yacht Lewis Pelly, launch-tugs Garmsir, Sirdar-I-Naphti, Mashona, Miner, all manned, armed and commissioned by HMS Ocean.





HMS Espiegle (Photo Ships)



Odin, sloop, Epiegle-class, 1,070t, 6-4in/4-3pdr, Capt Hayes-Sadler in command and crewed by Espiegle, with convoy carrying Anglo-Indian expeditionary force, entered Shatt-el-Arab and came under Turkish fire. Odin in 40-minute duel silenced a 4-gun battery at Fort Fao or Al Faw guarding the Shatt-el-Arab entrance, hit twice and later fired on by riflemen from trenches. Espiegle hit entrenchments further upstream opposite Abadan (Rn/D/gb)

I agree with you, British/ India troops should indeed be transported to the Persian Gulf. I have contacted the powers that be, to see what they think off adding Oilfields to the game, as strategic objectives, with positive and negative morale effects, thoughts anyone regarding this suggestion?[8D]

Adding a thing to make reason for war with Ottomans is a good think. For now I can't see any reason unless you want to turn attention of CP in other front line. Ewen if you force Ottomans to surrender (which is allmoust imposible in multiplayer) you gain no victory point.... why?
I think makeing some worthy goals there is a very good idea!
Adding a Victory Point for Ottoman surrender bring back a "draw state" in game. And weakening them a little would be a good thing...

The game is not logical concerning Persian gulf.
As UK you can deploy units and try an invasion, but NOT any warships - which essentially means you can't supply your units there.

It is necessary to enable Entente player to move warships in the Persian gulf.

try to check if unit transport gives supply- then you can supply your units without warships ;D

Thanks for the tip.

I don't know if transport give supply- did you checked it?

Hi Suprass!

My PC turned into a smoldering pile of junk about a month or so ago, got a new PC, however it is not completely setup yet.

The thing about using transports; (1) cost in PP for unit in transport (2) tying up a transport point for a possibly extended period of time (3) resulting in a units' (in transport) readiness loss (in the RED) (4) Yes, Transport would be a supply source for adjacent ground troops (bring up to full (supply) strength and available tech upgrades).

Would prefer to have a cruiser in the Persian Gulf at 1 PP, than have to pay 2 PP for a garrison unit on a transport, ramping up adverse effects for home nation.

Now, having a port in Kuwait included with the 1.40 patch makes even more sense to have warships available in the Persian gulf region.