Supply Points

Siberian HEAT

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1
Location
Cheyenne Mtn, CO
Country
llUnited States
Just had a couple thoughts on supply points (and lack thereof) - with the intent to free some up for use in more important spots.

Why not remove the Axis SP in Addis Abbaba by cutting a supply road north through the desert to the Italian supply net up there? It is such a small sideshow that it hardly seems worth a SP.

Why not run a supply road from the mainland USA down a "off map" corridor and round it out in South Africa? This would remove the SP in South Africa, as this is also a little used theatre.

Remove Axis SP in Cagliari and instead have a sea supply road connect directly to the Italian mainland.

Possibly do the same with Tirana (run a line across the sea to Italian coast).

Possibly remove Alexandria supply point, since there is one a few hexes away in Cairo.

Possibly create sea roads from Britain to Normandy...and elminate the SP's there. In fact more supply roads would help give the Allies some options on where they want to invade (does anyone even invade in Normandy?). Also, the downside of course is that allies could be pushed back out to sea on those roads.

Just throwing some options out there!
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
6,239
Reaction score
3
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
Although I don't like maps that overuse sea-roads (ugly!), I must confess that some of these are elegant solutions that would free up a couple SPs for use in areas where we really do feel the lack.

What's you take on this, Mark?
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
Siberian HEAT said:
Just had a couple thoughts on supply points (and lack thereof) - with the intent to free some up for use in more important spots.

Why not remove the Axis SP in Addis Abbaba by cutting a supply road north through the desert to the Italian supply net up there? It is such a small sideshow that it hardly seems worth a SP.
Because supply in the two theatres needs to be independent. Also I'm not keen to see the Italian player slowly evacuating his East Africa OOB to Libya, or massively reinforcing Ethiopia with Germans.

Why not run a supply road from the mainland USA down a "off map" corridor and round it out in South Africa? This would remove the SP in South Africa, as this is also a little used theatre.

Remove Axis SP in Cagliari and instead have a sea supply road connect directly to the Italian mainland.

Possibly do the same with Tirana (run a line across the sea to Italian coast).
These are all good.

Possibly remove Alexandria supply point, since there is one a few hexes away in Cairo.
Remove the Cairo supply point. Supplies arrive at ports- not miles inland. Better, have the supply point at Suez.
 

Siberian HEAT

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1
Location
Cheyenne Mtn, CO
Country
llUnited States
Ben Turner said:
Because supply in the two theatres needs to be independent. Also I'm not keen to see the Italian player slowly evacuating his East Africa OOB to Libya, or massively reinforcing Ethiopia with Germans.
The "supply road" to Addis Abbaba is just that, a road for supply...not for troops. Of course you are right in that SOME unscrupulous players would probably send Rommel to East Africa to help shore them up. However, in reality, the theatre is usually in action for about 10 minutes of game time - just long enough for the horrible Italian troops to get smacked down. :D

It is possible there could be a time when the Italians are cleared off of North Africa, but still remain in East Africa...and that *would* be a problem...but one can argue that any remaining troops in EA would surely not last long if the rest of the Italian Empire had crumbled...its not like Addis Abbaba could produce tanks or other weapons. :cheeky:
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
Siberian HEAT said:
The "supply road" to Addis Abbaba is just that, a road for supply...not for troops. Of course you are right in that SOME unscrupulous players would probably send Rommel to East Africa to help shore them up.
Not only that, but units would retreat along your road from East Africa automatically. And once Ethiopia was liberated the Allies would have supply in the Libyan desert. Really, all quite wrong.

Is there such a dire need for this extra supply point? Especially as you've already found two spares in Albania and Sardinia.
 

Rev

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Location
Illinois
Country
llUnited States
Siberian HEAT said:
Possibly create sea roads from Britain to Normandy...and elminate the SP's there. In fact more supply roads would help give the Allies some options on where they want to invade (does anyone even invade in Normandy?).
Just throwing some options out there!
Where do the traditional invasions in EA go to, if not Normandy is it much closer to Berlin, say from the Baltic or something?


Rev

I need to know so that when I come ashore again in a 100 turns or so, I'll have an idea where to stab Don at for the win. :devil:
 

Siberian HEAT

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1
Location
Cheyenne Mtn, CO
Country
llUnited States
Rev said:
Where do the traditional invasions in EA go to, if not Normandy is it much closer to Berlin, say from the Baltic or something?


Rev

I need to know so that when I come ashore again in a 100 turns or so, I'll have an idea where to stab Don at for the win. :devil:
I've only played one game that went that far as the Allies. I went ashore in Portugal...because it was really the only place where there was a decent supply point that wasn't totally covered by the Axis. I've never seen a "proper" invasion of Normandy from either side.
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
Answering this thread and some of the other points raised in the earlier 'Belgian bug' one.

I'll correct the two deployments that start in the Rhine and the Great Lakes(!) and the odd river and road offshoots in Italy and Yugoslavia: anyone spotted any more of these?

I'm not so keen on the supply suggestions.

The idea of abandoning the Allied SP in South Africa and relying an a corridor from the USA could leave the former cut off. I know that an 'Azores' blocking hex has been suggested but the Allies were worried about potential Axis naval activity off of the coast of West Africa, especially with the formation of Vichy France: this is partly why the French naval squadrons in Algeria, Morocco and Dakar were attacked by the Royal Navy. This is specifically why I have the 'Richelieu' Group appearing off of Dakar: it was there, was considered a threat, and was attacked and crippled.

Could do the East Africa Axis SP suggestion but Ben's right in that, either by design or accident, the corridor would end up being used for troop movements and probably battles.

Don't like the Sardinia and Albania suggestions because it will just compound the existing problems with land units being forced onto those artificial sea roads and, more to the point, are we really that short of Axis SPs anyway?

Same applies to supply roads running from Southern England to Northern France: I agree with the theory of it, but that area is very likely to see a lot of combat, both early and later on in a full length scenario, and I reckon that everyone would start weeping and wailing if a sizeable stack of land units were shoved out to sea. There were only a few areas seriously considered for 'Overlord' - it was either a major port, and we've got Allied SPs in Cherbourg, Calais, Antwerp and Rotterdam - or Normandy. It's probably fair to suggest that, had the Germans been able to garrison all of them with nine corps apiece, which is what you're concerned about, there would have been no landings there. In the scenario the Allies still have the option of landing at the other, admittedly unsupplied, beach hexes, and surrounding and wearing down the Germans if the latter choose to sit on the SPs (remember the Germans will be out of supply too.) Probably will be a bloody business, but the Allies should have naval and air superiority by then, and they only need one SP to supply the entire invasion front. Alternatively they could strike inland for Paris, also an SP. (I accept that Marseilles is a little ambitious!) I do try to play games through to the bitter end, and I have experienced several 'Overlord' style Allied invasions (Pelle?). I've never played a game where the Axis can garrison every potential Allied SP with such overwhelming numbers of troops that it becomes impossible to land, although that was, of course, Hitler's aim.

The Japanese? Bit speculative I agree, but as with the Vichy French at Dakar there was a genuine fear that the Japanese might enter the Indian Ocean, and I consider that a 50% chance of a relatively small force arriving is enough to simulate those fears.

I have thought hard about the two Allied SPs in Egypt before. It does seem odd to have two so close together, but Alexandria was the major port in the Eastern Mediterranean and Cairo was the economic and administrative centre for the Middle East. I think that both would have had to have been lost for the Allied position to collapse, which it will do all too easily if there's only one SP in the whole region. I could live with shifting the Cairo one to Suez, but that's only three hexes distant.

Still willing to listen to suggestions - even the same ones repeated more loudly! - but I can assure you that a spider's web of sea supply roads will cause more problems than they solve.

Now, back to 'Drang Nach Osten' which consumes a great deal of time...
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
Persia's a bit of a sideshow and the Shah's army did disintegrate when faced with a serious invasion - if anything, having both those two corps and the Tehran garrison is a bit generous, but it does stop a lone NKVD division occupying the entire country unmolested - so I@m not overly concerned about Axis supply there.
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
Mark Stevens said:
Don't like the Sardinia and Albania suggestions because it will just compound the existing problems with land units being forced onto those artificial sea roads
There is actually a (somewhat dubious) fix for this, in deploying nine indestructible and immovable units on each hex to be blocked. Of course, this means the hex can only carry supply for that force- but one could make these units the same colour as formations that are withdrawn at appropriate times.

and, more to the point, are we really that short of Axis SPs anyway?
An excellent point. Just bear these options in mind if there ever were a need for extra supply points.

The Japanese? Bit speculative I agree, but as with the Vichy French at Dakar there was a genuine fear that the Japanese might enter the Indian Ocean, and I consider that a 50% chance of a relatively small force arriving is enough to simulate those fears.
I'll note here that so encouraging historical behaviour is contrary to EA's philosophy which led to the free Russian and French deployment, etc.

Cairo was the economic and administrative centre for the Middle East.
It might be a supply dump but it is not a supply source. If this was a 5km/hex North Africa scenario then I would advocate having the supply point here. It is, however, a 33km/hex all-of-WWII-in-Europe scenario, and as such the Cairo supply point is inappropriate.

I could live with shifting the Cairo one to Suez, but that's only three hexes distant.
Better. Suez was the Allied supply source. Lose that and Egypt should be out of supply- but removing the supply point at Alexandria makes the Nile bridges unrealistically important.
 

Siberian HEAT

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1
Location
Cheyenne Mtn, CO
Country
llUnited States
Ben Turner said:
There is actually a (somewhat dubious) fix for this, in deploying nine indestructible and immovable units on each hex to be blocked. Of course, this means the hex can only carry supply for that force- but one could make these units the same colour as formations that are withdrawn at appropriate times.
Thats funny! I was actually thinking about this last night while trying to get to sleep. I considered the static stack of 9 fix...but also there is another solution that is perhaps equally dubious, but perhaps slightly more realistic. For the sea roads that lead to invasion points you could land your troops in the hex connected by a sea road but then create something akin to "landing barges" that are one or two units (probably destroyers given the counter mix) and which stack 9 deep behind the invasion hex, in effect "pushing" the units inland.

Pros:

*This will keep units from exiting on supply roads.
*It does have some basis in historical accuracy in that there had to be some supporting vessels involved in any amphibious invasion.
*It is most realistic for larger assaults like D-Day or Sicily.

Cons:
*Requires judicious use by players. These units are for invasions ONLY and can't be use for blockades, scouting, etc. They also cannot be targeted by the enemy - because they are more a "theoretical unit" rather than actual units.
*If a unit fails to advance during an amhpibious assault, you might only need 8 boats to create the 9-deep hex...but the no attack rule would protect that wallowing unit.
*It could complicate supporting vessels such as the regular fleets (can't get close to support the invasion).
*Because of the dynamic nature of the turns, it is possible the boats wouldn't get put into place before the turn ended, leaving the same problem.

Why not allow attacks on the boats? These are just placeholders, in effect the swarming mass of landing craft that would necessarily be left behind when the units landed. We can surmise the enemy would be more concerned with capital ships, allied air, and or the units on the beach rather than trying to hit empty landing craft.

Also, in answer to the point about Addis Abbaba, much of this is theoretical, however, I think it is important to note that the die-hards of this game DO read the manual and play by the rules. If the game can be improved by creating artificial roads across the Libyan desert, then it really doesn't matter if the casual player doesn't read the house rules and moves units back and forth. In that case, he/she will already be missing the essence of the game anyway.

To that end, for AA supply point, you could remove it, put a convoluted road through the desert (to dissuade its use as a through-route) AND place a small static Axis unit somewhere in the middle so that allied supply never goes north.

With regard to South Africa, my idea was to create a totally separate corridor from the USA (similar to the "off-map" corridor in the USSR) to South Africa. It would be out of play for the Axis player.

Another thing to help the sea road problem, is not have them go into ports at all. Always put the road somewhere else. This is most useful in the less important parts of the map like Sardinia and Albania.
 

Siberian HEAT

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1
Location
Cheyenne Mtn, CO
Country
llUnited States
Sevastapol needs a supply point. :hurray:

Also, to solve the Japanese supply problem in Madagascar, the temptation is to just put a point on the island itself. However, a more elegant solution would be to run a corridor from Tunis straight down to the coast (currently in unplayable hexes) and then create a series of sea roads down there that connect to the island. This would at least give a chance of supply reaching Madagascar, although the RN would have to sit on those hexes to physically block supply (a dicey proposition if the Japs have a carrier air available). If the Axis truly has lost North Africa, then there is really nowhere that the Japs could get supply from. I'd argue in this case to allow the Japs to disband (go home) rather than have them sit there out of supply.
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
Siberian HEAT said:
Sevastapol needs a supply point. :hurray:
Were the Soviets really able to supply this city by sea despite Luftwaffe interference?

Also, to solve the Japanese supply problem in Madagascar, the temptation is to just put a point on the island itself. However, a more elegant solution would be to run a corridor from Tunis straight down to the coast (currently in unplayable hexes) and then create a series of sea roads down there that connect to the island. This would at least give a chance of supply reaching Madagascar, although the RN would have to sit on those hexes to physically block supply (a dicey proposition if the Japs have a carrier air available). If the Axis truly has lost North Africa, then there is really nowhere that the Japs could get supply from. I'd argue in this case to allow the Japs to disband (go home) rather than have them sit there out of supply.
This is absurd, though. Why should Vichy French or Italian supply dumps affect Japanese troops operating five thousand miles away? These troops will be supplied across the Indian Ocean. Have a supply road run to the island from across the sea- then the supply will be dependent on the survival of that carrier group.
 

Siberian HEAT

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1
Location
Cheyenne Mtn, CO
Country
llUnited States
Ben Turner said:
Were the Soviets really able to supply this city by sea despite Luftwaffe interference?



This is absurd, though. Why should Vichy French or Italian supply dumps affect Japanese troops operating five thousand miles away? These troops will be supplied across the Indian Ocean. Have a supply road run to the island from across the sea- then the supply will be dependent on the survival of that carrier group.
Well, if we have the supply dumps to just throw away on a 50-50 shot of the Japs ever showing up then I'm all for it. I was looking for a solution that is more tied to the situation in Africa than on the Indian Ocean. Surely the Japanese would be smarter than to stick around if all they saw were allied troops up and down the coast of the continent? I'll grant you this contingency is one of the more far out possibilities in the game, but I recently did have a game where the Japanese showed up for me so it is fresh in my thinking. Additionally, these things are more conceptual than anything else...I'm not suggesting the Italians are actually shipping supplies to the Japs. It is just a workaround until more practical solutions can be determined.

A supply point in the Indian Ocean is the most logical, but not necessarily the best use of a supply point.

EDIT: To get some value out of that supply point in the Indian Ocean, I guess we could put a feeder line into Persia as well, and get those guys some goods and services. :love:
 

Siberian HEAT

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1
Location
Cheyenne Mtn, CO
Country
llUnited States
I'm not really qualified to answer on the Sevastopol question other than to state what we already know - which is that they held out into 1942 and forced a fairly sizable response by the Germans to take the city. As it stands it is a matter of course to simply starve the defenders out if they get trapped on the Crimea or want to put up resistance there. It would be nice to give the Soviets a truly defensible city, requiring the Germans to divert some resources to physically remove said threat.

This was discussed long ago, but dismissed due to the supply situation.
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
Siberian HEAT said:
Well, if we have the supply dumps to just throw away on a 50-50 shot of the Japs ever showing up then I'm all for it. I was looking for a solution that is more tied to the situation in Africa than on the Indian Ocean. Surely the Japanese would be smarter than to stick around if all they saw were allied troops up and down the coast of the continent?
The thing is, an Allied or Axis military presence in Egypt makes virtually no difference to the naval situation in the Indian Ocean, which is what would matter. I suppose if the Axis had succeeded in subdueing all of East Africa then that would impact on Madagascar, but otherwise the place is really a totally separate theatre.
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
Siberian HEAT said:
I'm not really qualified to answer on the Sevastopol question other than to state what we already know - which is that they held out into 1942 and forced a fairly sizable response by the Germans to take the city.
The trouble is that interpreting this as a supply point means that a force of any size can be supplied here.
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
I don't know enough about the defence of Sevastapol: was it maintained by keeping open a sea route from other Soviet Black Sea ports, or did the Axis completely blockade it prior to the siege?

I have to tell you that I'm not too enamoured of fixed off-shore invasion landing platforms dedicated for use by one side or the other - I can forsee all sorts of odd situations developing :nuts:
 
Top