Gallipoli 1915

[jjjeko]

Just played Gallipoli 1915

It looks it is just too easy for the Allied, especially around Cape Helles, where Entente garrison units are encircled by Allied units debarking in ports, and then easily wiped out.

Developments around ANZAC bay is more likely to follow an historical outcome, some well placed counterattacks can clear the beaches.

The Allied can then proceed in shelling the hell out of the Entente...

Is it just my opinion or the scenario needs to be fixed?

Problems I see:
- Entente coastal fortifications with 0MP, if they attack they cannot entrench back (I get this is a common problem, as brought forward by Bloodstar on http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69208)
- Ports on Cape Helles, maybe leave only the one in Sedd-el-Bahr
- Turkish fortifications were present also on the east bank of the Dardanelles, may they should be introduced in order to provide support.

Ciao ciao

JJ

[Veers]

Just played Gallipoli 1915

It looks it is just too easy for the Allied, especially around Cape Helles, where Entente garrison units are encircled by Allied units debarking in ports, and then easily wiped out.

Developments around ANZAC bay is more likely to follow an historical outcome, some well placed counterattacks can clear the beaches.

The Allied can then proceed in shelling the hell out of the Entente...
First off, I take it that by Allies yu actually mean the Entente and by Entente you mean the Central Powers (the ttoman Empire in this case), correct?


Is it just my opinion or the scenario needs to be fixed?
Problems I see:
- Central Power coastal fortifications with 0MP, if they attack they cannot entrench back (I get this is a common problem, as brought forward by Bloodstar on http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69208)
This isn't so much a problem as these dug-in units will support combats in range without being directly assigned to those combats. So you never really need to un-dig them.


- Ports on Cape Helles, maybe leave only the one in Sedd-el-Bahr
- Turkish fortifications were present also on the east bank of the Dardanelles, may they should be introduced in order to provide support.

And that's about all I've got. :D

[jjjeko]

Ciao Veers

I have made my usual mess with sides,
:-(
you are correct in your assumption.

The problems is that if the Turks use the forts to against the Entente fleet, the forts become mobile and cannot be dug in / fortified.
Since the forts, as per house rules, are not to be sued to assist combats on the opposite shore, they are likely to be used in anti shipping role.

The result is that they are shredded to pieces as soon as they open fire on the fleet. Being that (i.e. shelling enemy ships) their initially intended purpose the whole thing is quite _funny_

Moreover, as the Turks, in given turns, are not likley to set up many different attacks, they might like to assign forts to specific attacks instead of using them for support. This option is not viable due to the un digging.

IIUC the 0MP means that the forts cannot attack directly units adjacent to them, which is yet questionable.

Ciao ciao

JJ

[Veers]

Ciao Veers

I have made my usual mess with sides,
:-(
you are correct in your assumption.

The problems is that if the Turks use the forts to against the Entente fleet, the forts become mobile and cannot be dug in / fortified.
Since the forts, as per house rules, are not to be sued to assist combats on the opposite shore, they are likely to be used in anti shipping role.

The result is that they are shredded to pieces as soon as they open fire on the fleet. Being that (i.e. shelling enemy ships) their initially intended purpose the whole thing is quite _funny_

Moreover, as the Turks, in given turns, are not likley to set up many different attacks, they might like to assign forts to specific attacks instead of using them for support. This option is not viable due to the un digging.

IIUC the 0MP means that the forts cannot attack directly units adjacent to them, which is yet questionable.
Ah, well, in that case, bummer. Was not thinking of the anti-shipping role. Well, I beleive this is an item on the 'WIsh-list', so, maybe it will be upated someday.

[jjjeko]

I think that all support units should not change their status when making a support attack (either specific or not).
Reality check would sound fine.
ciao ciao