Matrix Games Forums

I would like to try out the game with a number of voluntary restrictions on play in order to achieve a more historical game than a straight PBEM game provides:

1. Germany cannot invest in amphibious warfare
2. No amphibious landings permitted on the European coast from October to May inclusive (except SF)
3. No amphibious landings permitted on the African coast, Mediterranean islands or Middle East from December to April inclusive except SF)
4. No landings permitted on the Lybian coast at any time.
5. No more than 4 air units allowed in Africa and the Middle East per nation.

If you can think of any others let me know.

Victory conditions based on the surrender of Germany:

Allied total victory (10-0): Germany surrenders in or before December 1944
Allied crushing victory (9-1): Germany surrenders in January 1945
Allied victory (8-2): Germany surrenders in February 1945
Allied tactical victory (7-3): Germany surrenders in March 1945
Allied minor victory (6-4): Germany surrenders in April 1945

Draw (5-5): Germany surrenders in May 1945

Axis minor victory (4-6): Germany surrenders in June 1945
Axis tactical victory (3-7): Germany surrenders in July 1945
Axis victory (2-8): Germany surrenders in August 1945
Axis crushing victory (1-9): Germany surrenders in September 1945
Axis total victory (0-10): Germany surrenders in October 1945

Sounds interesting!

Out of curiosity, why is an amphibious assault on Libya not historical? Would an amphibious attack on Egypt be ok? (I know it would be permitted under restriction 3, I'm just not sure what makes Libya so special)

Also, I might tweak it to allow Special Forces to ignore the amphibious restrictions (the argument being that these are specially-trained troops that can either clear a path for a larger amphibious assault when weather permits, or as a decoy to attack a complacent opponent)

Good point about SF. That also ties in with Narvik expedition.

The restriction for Lybian coast is to reflect that in nearly three years of war no one contemplated an amphibious landing to turn the flank of the enemy. That would suggest it was logistically too difficult or risky for a large scale operation. My guess would be a combination of unsuitable coast and lack of fresh water sources to supply troops. Whatever the actual reason, it wasn't a realistic proposition and i would like to reflect that in the game.

I have left the rest of Africa as ok for landings because historically they have been subject to amphibious landings.

Let me know if you'd like to play a game with these restrictions. My axis is advanced, but I don't have much experience as the allies. I'm down to play either side.

ORIGINAL: jlopez

Good point about SF. That also ties in with Narvik expedition.

The restriction for Lybian coast is to reflect that in nearly three years of war no one contemplated an amphibious landing to turn the flank of the enemy. That would suggest it was logistically too difficult or risky for a large scale operation. My guess would be a combination of unsuitable coast and lack of fresh water sources to supply troops. Whatever the actual reason, it wasn't a realistic proposition and i would like to reflect that in the game.

I have left the rest of Africa as ok for landings because historically they have been subject to amphibious landings.

Might have to do that it was garrisoned properly? [&:] If you put a corp in their NA port city, it will be out of the allies means to dislodge it by amphibious assault for quite some time.

OK Hamburgermeat. I've set up a game with today's date (20/04). I'll put you as Axis if that's OK as i want to see how the game pans out with both players knowing what to do. Or at least you will...

Password is your username, lowercase

I am interested in game.