Save my game!!! Amphibious assault on Basra - allowed or not?

[vodkaferret]

Hi Folks,

I need some help - my first ever game over EA is over 100 turns old and about to die after a rules disagreement.

Situation is this :

We are fighting in Egypt, I am axis. Whenever I kill a UK unit I see it 2 turns later reformed and rushing over from Basra to rejoin the fight. So I started thinking of using the Iraqi uprising TO, as I am bogging down badly in Egypt. So I sent an Italian unit, sailed it to Basra (along the only route, the sea supply road), and when I got next to the city I found it empty. So then I sailed into the hex north of the Sea Supply road, adjacent to Basra but not on the road, and landed in undefended Basra.

Two turns later my opponent realised what has happened, and asked me to replay as he said it was illegal to sail along the sea supply road. He deliberately left Basra undefended because of this, sending all available units to the war in Egypt instead. I believe the rules say I cannot use land movement along a SSR, (I didn't) and you have to land from a non-sea supply hex (I did). Also the map does not say "No Axis Landings", as it does in some other places on the board. So I think my move was legal.

I offered my opponent a compromise, a couple of non-related things in exchange for sailing out again. However I said that I would give him 5 turns to garrison Basra, then after that it's fair game.

My opponent is refusing to accept this. His argument is that Basra should not be open to invasion in the future "as Britain, India, and allies had some naval (and air) power in the Persian Gulf, and the Axis would have no way of supporting an amphibious invasion of Iraq via the Suez! I can, however, offer to leave a small (non-russian) unit in Basra as an "occupation force" necessary to maintain Britain's colonial holdings in a less-than-friendly nation. "

This I don't feel inclined to accept. The units that should have been in Basra have been fighting and dying in Egypt, slowing me down and killing my troops. So I've already lost out. My opinion is that if the move is legal (amphibious assault into Basra) then it should be allowed. It's then up to my opponent to garrison it or not.

So please help me with this. I'm telling my oppo about this post, and I'm hoping Mark or any other experienced heads can give us the score on this - is the move legal or not?

Thanks in advance.

 

[medck]

I'd be inclined to side with your opponent on this one. To invade Basra by sea would require you to sail through the Suez Canal down the Red Sea, through the narrow Bab el-Mandeb Strait, around the Arabian Peninsula, through the Strait of Hormuz, up the Persian Gulf and into Basra.

Now, I'm not sure how the front lines are drawn in Egypt, but it doesn't sound like you've over-run the Arabian Peninsula and I'm likewise not sure what the siutation is like in British Sudan-Kenya/Italian Somaliland. But if you haven't over-run Somaliland AND haven't pushed the British out of East Africa, then you would have to run a strait where the UK controls both banks. And then you're on the high seas which should hardly be safe -- this is just not a realistic invasion. Look at the trouble the Germans got into in Norway and how much of an effort OverLord was for a few dozen miles.

As I'm sure you can also see, the path you followed is clearly labelled "Sea Supply Road ONLY". I think it is quite fair to interpret that as meaning it can only be used as a sea supply road, not as regular ocean for putting an invasion fleet on. This is especially relevant as the hexes for Port Sudan and Djibouti (do you control these?) would in reality be inside the Red Sea and potential places for Allied air and naval power to interdit any invasion. Due to the arrangement of the map, you avoid that choke point.

Oh, and the distance is 3269 miles -- at least according to sea-distance.com [Suez to Basrah]. In comparison, Brest to New York is 3022 miles.

You probably should take the mandatory small garrison he's offering you.

 

[Mark Stevens]

I'm sorry to say that I agree with your opponent. It's hard to cater for every eventuality in the already very lengthy Briefing, and you've certainly come up with an ingenious twist, but it wasn't my intention that Basra be open to an amphibious invasion.

I just don't believe that the Italians could have mounted such an operation.

It would be a huge pity to fall out with your opponent having got so far. I think the small garrison compromise is reasonable.

Now, if you can fight your way overland...

 

[drdru7029]

I'm by no means an expert on the game or WWII but simply in terms of the logistical situation it would seem like an amphibious assault on Basra from the provided route would be highly unlikely at the time. I do have a question though: is it allowed to reinforce the Basra garrison from the sea path? For example, I could imagine holding securely onto Egypt but having to watch a few Axis units taking the long road through the desert to assault Basra, and the Allies not being able to do anything about it.

 

[MThomas722]

Yes, it would be a great shame to end an EA game over this.

As others have said it's highly unlikely the Germans or Italians could have done an amphib. assault on Basra - just no logistics or sealift for it (maybe the Japs?). That said an amphib. assault on Gibraltar is almost as unlikely, and you can do that in EA. As far as I can see Basra gets you very little as the Axis, other than stopping units reconstitute. Since it was such an important hub it's reasonable to expect the Allies to strongly defend it.

My ruling would be Axis have to pull out. Allies need to keep a brigade there.

As for the other Q, I think it's fine for the Allies to reinforce Basra by sea, as I'm sure they did this the real world.

Cheers for the great scenario,

Matt

 

[vodkaferret]

I'm sorry to say that I agree with your opponent. It's hard to cater for every eventuality in the already very lengthy Briefing, and you've certainly come up with an ingenious twist, but it wasn't my intention that Basra be open to an amphibious invasion.

I just don't believe that the Italians could have mounted such an operation.

It would be a huge pity to fall out with your opponent having got so far. I think the small garrison compromise is reasonable.

Now, if you can fight your way overland...

Guys,

Thanks very much for all your help on this - I believe we're now underway again and both happy with the compromise - my opponent gets Basra back but will have to garrison it with something. On reflection you're right, a full-on amphibious invasion would not have been feasible (although amphibious ops are a weak point in TOAW generally I think), but I'm sure if it had been left completely undefended then even the italians could have arranged a single boatload of commandos to cause havoc, eat pizza and inflict crap euro-pop on the poor denizens of Basra.

Thanks again,

S