Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

PSP/DS/PC/MAC : WWII turn based grand strategy game

Moderators: firepowerjohan, rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core

BuddyGrant
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:06 am

Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by BuddyGrant »

When the axis controls the Suez canal in GS 3.0 they cannot send ships to the Atlantic via the Cape of Good Hope. They can send ships through the Suez, but the entry hex to the Atlantic is shown to be American controlled. Is this a bug?
richardsd
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:30 am

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by richardsd »

BuddyGrant wrote:When the axis controls the Suez canal in GS 3.0 they cannot send ships to the Atlantic via the Cape of Good Hope. They can send ships through the Suez, but the entry hex to the Atlantic is shown to be American controlled. Is this a bug?
as designed I believe
GogTheMild
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:44 pm
Location: Derby, UK

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by GogTheMild »

richardsd wrote:as designed I believe
Correct.

Regardless of who controls the Suez Canal, either side can send ships between the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf and only the Allies can send ships either way between the Atlantic and the Red Sea. (If the Axis press on into Iraq they would do well to leave a garrison in Suez.)
We sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.
Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by Peter Stauffenberg »

it is as designed. Only the Allies had facilities around the Cape of Good Hope to sustain naval movement there. E. g. Allied naval bases along the African coast line. The Axis had no bases where naval units could refuel / hide etc. except Italian East Africa and Tanganyika on the African east coast.
GogTheMild
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:44 pm
Location: Derby, UK

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by GogTheMild »

A picky point :roll: , but Tanganyika had been a British protectorate since 1918.

However, a number of Free French and Spanish territories may have been more welcoming. (By "may" I mean 'historically were'.)
We sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.
BuddyGrant
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:06 am

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by BuddyGrant »

Stauffenberg wrote:it is as designed. Only the Allies had facilities around the Cape of Good Hope to sustain naval movement there. E. g. Allied naval bases along the African coast line. The Axis had no bases where naval units could refuel / hide etc. except Italian East Africa and Tanganyika on the African east coast.
At first I thought this might have been a game balance decision, but if this design decision was based on WWII history then then it is not accurate. German U-Boats passed by the Cape Of Good Hope with some frequency during WWII, and likely would have done so much more often if they had controlled the Suez. As it was they did get some U-Boats into the Med via the dangerous Gibraltar route, but if they would have owned the Suez they certainly would have moved more boats into the Med via Cape of Good Hope-to-Suez. They did not need bases for these operations because they had supply ships & supply subs.

It seems to me that the Cape of Good Hope route in CEAW:GS should be open to all sides throughout the war. If Germany does not take the Suez then they likely would not use this route anyway, but if they do then they would have used this route to put U-Boats into the Med (much safer than the Gibraltar dash:)). Not only would this be historically accurate, but it would be an extra incentive for the Axis player to attempt to take the Suez, something I believe you are trying to encourage anyway (more North Africa ops in GS). One counter argument could be that many of these Cape of Good Hope trips ended in disaster, but that was only later in the war when the German communication codes had been broken and there were no safe locations for Axis submarines anywhere.

Here are some related stats:
- German operational U-Boats that were stationed in the Indian Ocean: 41 (according to Wiki, and up to 45 different boats according to some other GE naval website references).
- German supply U-Boats that went to Japan via the the Cape Of Good Hope: At least 1 I'm aware of (to deliver Me 109 engine, a jet engine, and other tech plans & components to Japan).
- Japanese Subs that passed the Cape of Good Hope on trips to Germany: 5.

Some GE Indian Ocean U-Boat Operations links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsun_Gruppe
http://uboat.net/ops/monsun2.htm
http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ ... ature3.htm

Some references to the Japanese trips to Germany (exchanges of technologies, etc.):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_s ... -52_(1943)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-8
GogTheMild
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:44 pm
Location: Derby, UK

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by GogTheMild »

Much of this was debated at the time the decision was made.
We sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.
BuddyGrant
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:06 am

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by BuddyGrant »

GogTheMild wrote:Much of this was debated at the time the decision was made.
I don't recall seeing that, were those discussions in a private beta forum?
Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by Peter Stauffenberg »

Closed beta forum.

A transport loop is open to all naval units for a side including transports. It was discussed that maybe Axis subs only could use the Atlantic loop, but we decided to do it simple. There is no way the Germans could have supported a naval amphibious invasion of e. g. Egypt / Iraq by sailing around the Cape of Good Hope.

Some German subs were able to sail through Gibraltar, but a lot of them were sunk trying. Just look at the German movie Das Boot who is a pretty accurate story from a journalist stationed on a German sub. The losses were so high so the Germans rarely tried it. Not many German subs operated in the Med. So it's best to keep it simple instead of creating special rules where subs sailing past Gibraltar will get attacked with losses from 0-10 steps.
GogTheMild
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:44 pm
Location: Derby, UK

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by GogTheMild »

According to Wiki 62 U-boats ran the straights. 43 made it. (10 sunk, 9 damaged and returned to base.)

More importantly, that isn't the issue BuddyGrant raised.
We sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.
BuddyGrant
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:06 am

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by BuddyGrant »

Stauffenberg wrote:A transport loop is open to all naval units for a side including transports. It was discussed that maybe Axis subs only could use the Atlantic loop, but we decided to do it simple. There is no way the Germans could have supported a naval amphibious invasion of e. g. Egypt / Iraq by sailing around the Cape of Good Hope.
Your arguments for closing the Cape of Good Hope to the Axis remain unconvincing:). First of all, German surface ships passed by the South African Cape frequently during WW2 so a complex 'subs only' passage design consideration should have been a non-starter. The idea of Germans moving troop transport ships around the Cape is as plausible as the USA supporting naval amphibious invasions from the US east coast straight to French beaches if England was German controlled. In other words, that 'no way' scenario is already allowed to occur in the game - it's just one of the limitations of the games elegant but simplified naval invasion design. It's an awkward justification anyway since the reason this would likely not have occurred in real life is the same reason it would likely not occur in this game: Possible, but too risky.

Sorry if this sounds like I'm railing on GS, please understand that is not the intention here. GS has added so many incredible and realistic aspects to CEAW that it's virtually a brand new war-game. The supply rule design on the eastern side of the map is an extremely clever and an easy to understand method of simulating supply issues on such a deep and wide front. The implementation of paratroops and other elite units is equally clever and realistic given the game scope. The rail rules, submarine hunt/hide changes, and amphibious invasion changes are equally impressive.

In summary, the Cape of Good Hope is open water on any globe or map you will find, and restricting sea passage by the cape makes the game less realistic, especially if there is an interest in encouraging real world motivations for some of the North African land and Mediterranean/Atlantic naval actions in GS. If you are considering future GS updates I hope you might reconsider this design decision on the Cape of Good Hope!
pk867
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 3:18 pm

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by pk867 »

What German surface ships? Destroyers? Corvettes? The Graf Spree was found very quickly because of the British assets and damaged and then sunk when it tried to run.

The Axis did not have the where with all to support operations to any effective measure concerning the strategic scope of the game. The same with U-Boats entering the Med.

The numbers are too small to account for anything.
Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by Peter Stauffenberg »

There certainly weren't any transports sailing around the Cape of Good Hope. Those would have been easy prey to Allied subs and surface ships. I have no records of any big Axis warships sailing around the Cape of Good Hope? What would be the purpose?

Admiral Graf Spee was a surface raider and was discovered. The ship had to flee to port in Uruguay and was scuttled there. After that we didn't see long range surface raiders from the Germans. After losing Bismarck Hitler became too afraid of using his battleships so they were hiding instead. E. g. Tirpitz was hidden in Norwegian fjords for most of the time until it was sunk near Tromsø by the British.

This is not going to be changed in GS.
richardsd
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:30 am

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by richardsd »

I think some consideration needs to be given to the scale of actvity in the game - getting a CORP level flotilla around the cape was (IMHO) well beyond the Axis

certainly getting a CORP level flotilla accross the atlantic for an 'opposed' landing was possible to the Allies but not really the same thing

The Axis had a lot of 'quiet' friends that allowed all sorts of minor activity - but nothing at CORPs level
siln
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by siln »

I agree in the regards that the Axis should be allowed to use the transport loop. First, the Axis did operate in the South Atlantic during the war - subs were sent to infiltrate southern convoys coming up from South Africa. Wasn't it in S. America that the Graf Spee met its end? Why would it not include the cape - and as others have posted there were subs in the Indian Ocean. Second, The loss of the Suez canal would have been a devastating blow to the British (and allies in general) and would have cut the empire in two (at least from a maritime standpoint). The defense of the Red Sea and Indian Ocean would have been nearly untenable - especially in light of Japanese hostility and the loss of several British capital ships after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the loss of Harbors in the S. E Asia (India may have been able to compensate to some degree) - but overall I would guess Britian would retreat its Navy to protect its home isle. 3rd, if you have rules to the "arab spring" after the fall of Egypt, why wouldn't you also have "alternative rules" that would encompass a more endearing set of south american counties (Argentina) coming more into the Axis cause and even allow it to provide naval support in the setting of such a major Allied loss.

I think as far as game design this was a very poor decision.

Thus in summary - no axis access to loop = WORST EPISODE EVER! =)
Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by Peter Stauffenberg »

This can be altered in General.txt if you really want to.

ATLANTIC_TO_RED_SEA_CONTROL 200 /* 100 = Axis, 200 = Allies, 300 = open to both sides */
ATLANTIC_TO_PERSIAN_GULF_CONTROL 200 /* 100 = Axis, 200 = Allies, 300 = open to both sides */
RED_SEA_TO_PERSIAN_GULF_CONTROL 300 /* 100 = Axis, 200 = Allies, 300 = open to both sides */

Just change the value for the 2 Atlantic loops from 200 to 300 to open them for both sides.

There are no convoys running in the Persian Gulf or Red Sea. South Atlantic is off map and the convoys coming from there enters the map in the Atlantic close to Canary Islands. So all convoys can freely be attacked by Axis subs.

If you open the Atlantic loops for Axis naval units then you could see Axis invasions of Egypt or Iraq via the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. There is no way the Axis could support such invasions. You can't prevent players from exploiting possibilities they get.

Admiral Graf Spee was a surface raider in the Atlantic and the Germans stopped doing that early in the war when they saw the demise of that battleship. Even worse was the loss of Bismarck. In the game you can use surface ships as convoy hunters if you really want to.

There is a big difference between sailing a lone ship to the south Atlantic and an entire fleet of ships all the way to the Red Sea.
supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by supermax »

Stauffenberg wrote:This can be altered in General.txt if you really want to.

ATLANTIC_TO_RED_SEA_CONTROL 200 /* 100 = Axis, 200 = Allies, 300 = open to both sides */
ATLANTIC_TO_PERSIAN_GULF_CONTROL 200 /* 100 = Axis, 200 = Allies, 300 = open to both sides */
RED_SEA_TO_PERSIAN_GULF_CONTROL 300 /* 100 = Axis, 200 = Allies, 300 = open to both sides */

Just change the value for the 2 Atlantic loops from 200 to 300 to open them for both sides.

There are no convoys running in the Persian Gulf or Red Sea. South Atlantic is off map and the convoys coming from there enters the map in the Atlantic close to Canary Islands. So all convoys can freely be attacked by Axis subs.

If you open the Atlantic loops for Axis naval units then you could see Axis invasions of Egypt or Iraq via the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. There is no way the Axis could support such invasions. You can't prevent players from exploiting possibilities they get.

Admiral Graf Spee was a surface raider in the Atlantic and the Germans stopped doing that early in the war when they saw the demise of that battleship. Even worse was the loss of Bismarck. In the game you can use surface ships as convoy hunters if you really want to.

There is a big difference between sailing a lone ship to the south Atlantic and an entire fleet of ships all the way to the Red Sea.
I now see the thing.

So this was to prevent Axis from sailing from Atlantic to Red Sea and Red sea to Atlantic. I will suggest to change this in ALL of my games to my opponents from now on.

However historical the justifications maybe, this is a ridiculous decision, another reason not to have a North African campaign if you want to win the game...
shawkhan
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 7:36 pm

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by shawkhan »

Perhaps some of these quite interesting proposals I have been reading about today could be put into the game as options? Many of the game options already there are not really necessary anyway. The game could be given another life with greatly increased re-playability if some political options were added to that screen.
Early entry of Italy/Hungary/Rumania, the possibility of Spain entering the war, the Atlantic Loop, etc. would be great additions.
Personally, I feel that subs should be a special case anyway. They should be exempt from movement restrictions in the game.
I think already the invasion rules are too inaccurate. Landings should only be allowed where there is air cover. This would make aircraft carriers indispensable in the game if England were lost as an amphibious base.
Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by Peter Stauffenberg »

shawkhan wrote:Landings should only be allowed where there is air cover. This would make aircraft carriers indispensable in the game if England were lost as an amphibious base.
If that was true then Weserübüng would have been impossible.
shawkhan
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 7:36 pm

Re: Question about Suez canal ownership in GS 3.0

Post by shawkhan »

In Weserubung, Germans rapidly exploited airfields. In game turns the campaign was essentially completed in one turn. As the game is at corps level, all the Germans actually committed in the operation would only be about one unit. In the game, Norway can be taken as usual, using air cover from Denmark. In the real war, the Allies always insisted on air over to have a successful landing.
Germany operated on a shoestring. In the early years they accomplished much through sheer audacity, using forces smaller than the scale of this game allows.
I think that only allowing invasion with air cover would make the conquest of England more important in the game.
If we did something about convoys the game would be more historically accurate. If the Germans had actually taken England in 1940, I do believe the convoys would have decreased dramatically anyway. SeaLion would have been a war winner for the Axis. After a possible SeaLion, the only thing Churchill feared was the U-boats. This simply isn't the case in the game.
I think if people could be offered more options at game start this game could grow much more popular.
Post Reply

Return to “MILITARY HISTORY™ Commander - Europe at War : General Discussion”