Re: WWI: Gallipoli [9.9.15] V39 (p22) [Quenched]

[koontz1973]

From the names I checked into:

• Suffren - Iéna class
• Majestic - Majestic-class
• Swiftsure - Swiftsure-class
• Goliath - Canopus-class
• Vengeance - Canopus-class

all where pre dreadnought class battleships. Due to the fact that the dreadnought was not the same class of ship, the dreadnought was still a battleship. Keeping the BS for battleship is more than OK as one of the ships I checked is even French.

As for Dukasaur saying about the newspapers, papers would of inflated the facts (unheard of today ) for propaganda reasons.

[Oneyed]

yes not all ships were (in Gallipoli campaign) dreadnoughts. I have nothing against term battle ship, just dreadnought fits better with time period.

Oneyed

[cairnswk]

yes not all ships were (in Gallipoli campaign) dreadnoughts. I have nothing against term battle ship, just dreadnought fits better with time period.

Oneyed

Oneyed...a battleship is a class of naval vessel. a Dreadnought is a class of battleship. For me, battleship fits better.
Now please, enough of this to and froing over a minor point. I swear you'd have it out with JC himself.
Discuss something in the gameplay tactics for goodness sake.

[Oneyed]

I swear you'd have it out with JC himself.

who is JC?

Oneyed

[cairnswk]

I swear you'd have it out with JC himself.

who is JC?

Oneyed

the one whose birthday is supposedly in 4 days time.
It' s an Ozzie expression.

[Oneyed]

the one whose birthday is supposedly in 4 days time.

I swear you'd have it out with JC himself.

but still do not understand this sentence...

Oneyed

[koontz1973]

I swear you'd have it out with JC himself.

but still do not understand this sentence...

Oneyed

He means you like arguing over silly things just for the sake of arguing.


cairns, story, you have 25 Arp, should this not be 25 Apr?
Losing condition - a lot of the starting positions are next to each other, each SP has two territs on the land. So in a team game, players will get eliminated before a go happens. Am I correct in this assumption? If so, does this not strike you as bad for all team games? The position that you have as Gabi Tepe and Saraijik can even be eliminated first go as a battleship can bombard Gabi Tepe and FS + Sari can attack the other territ in land. This is going to be very bad for some games, including 1v1. I prefer the wording you have on the SP map. Not holding a non battleship territ. This seems to me far more balanced and stops all problems with starts. As I said, if my assumption is wrong, then so be it, disregard. Quick question, why have a losing condition?

[cairnswk]

I swear you'd have it out with JC himself.

but still do not understand this sentence...

Oneyed

He means you like arguing over silly things just for the sake of arguing.

koontzz, there is no need to give my secrets away.

cairns, story, you have 25 Arp, should this not be 25 Apr?

that was a trick...not.

Losing condition - a lot of the starting positions are next to each other, each SP has two territs on the land. So in a team game, players will get eliminated before a go happens. Am I correct in this assumption? If so, does this not strike you as bad for all team games?

Unfortunately, i cannot give the xml a distribution layout so that it distributes every starting position to the best benefit....so i guess this will have the same sort of starts that Salem does, and we can best group these so that everyone is evenly spread.
In real war, and particularly in this battle, there were some immediate casualties, and likely those who "jump in" will bombard the crap out of everything with their Battleships to eliminate opponents, and yes that is also what happened in this battle. It would be wrong not to have some positions on the map as "Turkish" defence positions, and if you get one of those, then you're likely to come under fire from battleships.
However, like all maps, there will be a strategy developed to ensure your survival, and if that means a couple of games have to be played with team mates and lady luck, then so be it.

The position that you have as Gabi Tepe and Saraijik can even be eliminated first go as a battleship can bombard Gabi Tepe and FS + Sari can attack the other territ in land. This is going to be very bad for some games, including 1v1.

Indeed.
I have moved Dumbrek start to Halil-eli,
and Saraijik to Kehlia Beach.

..Battleships.....Starts......Neutrals
......8.....N.....32....N.....60
P.2... 3.....2.....10....2....64
P.3... 3.....2.....10....2....64
P.4... 2.....0.....8.....0.....60
P.5... 1.....3.....6.....2.....65
P.6... 1.....2.....5.....2.....64
P.7... 1.....1.....4.....4.....65
P.8... 1.....0.....4.....0.....60

I think this will be the drop for each game if you can understand it.

I prefer the wording you have on the SP map. Not holding a non battleship territ. This seems to me far more balanced and stops all problems with starts. As I said, if my assumption is wrong, then so be it, disregard. Quick question, why have a losing condition?

Well, yes i did also until i thought much more about it.
BY only having the land territories as the requirement will take the Minesweepers and all landing craft out of the requirement picture also which is really advantageous, since these can be also be bombarded...the objective of the invasion was to land troops and move forward inland, which didn't occur.
So having the land territories really means you have to hold onto your land....battleship targets have been removed from start positions.

Version 27 with starts

[Oneyed]

I swear you'd have it out with JC himself.

but still do not understand this sentence...

Oneyed

He means you like arguing over silly things just for the sake of arguing.

koontzz, there is no need to give my secrets away.

I am not (upon any terms ).

Oneyed

[cairnswk]

...
..Battleships.....Starts......Neutrals
......8.....N.....32....N.....60
P.2... 3.....2.....10....2....64
P.3... 3.....2.....10....2....64
P.4... 2.....0.....8.....0.....60
P.5... 1.....3.....6.....2.....65
P.6... 1.....2.....5.....2.....64
P.7... 1.....1.....4.....4.....65
P.8... 1.....0.....4.....0.....60
....

Anyone got gampeplay comments on this.

[cairnswk]

koontz. i've had another look at what can be done for the land terts in team games.

...
Losing condition - a lot of the starting positions are next to each other, each SP has two territs on the land. So in a team game, players will get eliminated before a go happens. Am I correct in this assumption? If so, does this not strike you as bad for all team games?

1. one of green SP needed moving from Gelibolu III Corp to Tertchten Keui....too close to Bigali (grey)
2. postiions between all these start terts have been increased to 6N...this will make it slightly harder to conquer anyone in any game 1st round.
If this is not enough they can be increased further.

Quick question, why have a losing condition?

In the real battle, the Allies failed to gain hold of land and eventually had to withdraw.
The losing condition simulates this.

Version 28 SP and neutrals...

[Oneyed]

you have 2 yellow land batteries. does both bombard all regions with yellow targets? did you think to make them sepparate, so one of yellow land battery will have its clour and targets?

looking forward to play this one.

Oneyed

[cairnswk]

you have 2 yellow land batteries. does both bombard all regions with yellow targets? did you think to make them sepparate, so one of yellow land battery will have its clour and targets?
looking forward to play this one.
Oneyed

Yes, that is why they are both yellow.
No, they all had the same targets for yellow. There is no need for a different colour.
Glad to hear you're looking forward to it, but i'm afraid it will be a while at the foundry pace.

[cairnswk]

I hate to be pushy here again, but is this ready for gameplay stamp?

[cairnswk]

I hate to be pushy here again, but is this ready for gameplay stamp?

I have same question here, under the new foundry policy, if i am awaiting gameplay comment and don't do a graphics update for a month, does this map also get thrown in the recycling bin?

[nolefan5311]

I hate to be pushy here again, but is this ready for gameplay stamp?

I have same question here, under the new foundry policy, if i am awaiting gameplay comment and don't do a graphics update for a month, does this map also get thrown in the recycling bin?

You posted an update on the 1st. You'll get GP comments before the 30 days hits, I promise.

[cairnswk]

I hate to be pushy here again, but is this ready for gameplay stamp?

I have same question here, under the new foundry policy, if i am awaiting gameplay comment and don't do a graphics update for a month, does this map also get thrown in the recycling bin?

You posted an update on the 1st. You'll get GP comments before the 30 days hits, I promise.

OK thanks.

[nolefan5311]

A couple of questions/concerns cairns. A major concern I have is the large number of armies players start out with. We saw what kind of problem that presents in Pot Mosbi. I know there needs to be some buffer there with the losing condition, but those large stacks could make it too advantageous to go first.

I don't like that the two land batteries on Gendarmerie and Gaba Teppe have unrestrained ability to bombard the Landing Ships. Those two regions seem to be unnaturally powerful with the ability to bombard my opponents starting positions before he has a chance to play. The battleships can only bombard territories that start n3, or n6 in rare circumstances. I know you want historical accuracy, but having them be able to bombard the landing beaches instead of the battleships would even things up a bit.

The Gameplay notes in the first post don't really indicate this, but will each player be dropped the same amount of Land Positions and/or Landing Ships/Minesweepers? Since a player could potentially drop 3 or 4 more Landing Ships than his opponent, he could potentially start with a large advantage in autodeploy, but be disadvantaged in the amount of land territories he has. Is this just part of the luck?

Will the normal deployment of 1 army for every 3 territories apply?

[cairnswk]

A couple of questions/concerns cairns. A major concern I have is the large number of armies players start out with. We saw what kind of problem that presents in Pot Mosbi. I know there needs to be some buffer there with the losing condition, but those large stacks could make it too advantageous to go first.

OK, forget Battleships...they can only bombard first go and then fort.

starting numbers....60 neutrals and 40 positions distributed less the 8 battleships.

2P: 2 x 13 + 74N
3P: 3 x 13 + 61N
4P: 4 x 10 + 60N
5P: 5 x 8 + 60N
6P: 6 x 6 + 64N
7P: 7 x 5 + 65N
8P: 8 x 5 + 60N

in all games each person will start with 3 army drop, correct?

So,
1. if player places 1 on each of a BS, and landing craft (2), that gives the player 10 armies on first attack to get ashore to conquer at least 6-9 armies before they get within cooey of another player
2. they can chose to make their way through the Dardenelles...big job getting through mines...
3. they can chose to take land positions if they drop close by (randomly)...perhaps increase the land batteries to stop them getting them first go...perhaps 12N
4. or if you feel the numbers are too high...we can drop each start position by 3 to reduce the risk that someone will have lucky first dice.

I don't like that the two land batteries on Gendarmerie and Gaba Teppe have unrestrained ability to bombard the Landing Ships. Those two regions seem to be unnaturally powerful with the ability to bombard my opponents starting positions before he has a chance to play.

Well drop the starting numbers there also by three or more.

The battleships can only bombard territories that start n3, or n6 in rare circumstances.

Yes that was done so as to not take out someone on first go.

I know you want historical accuracy, but having them be able to bombard the landing beaches instead of the battleships would even things up a bit.

Gees, ok i can go with that, but are you gonna get me the extra room i need to display that graphically.

The Gameplay notes in the first post don't really indicate this, but will each player be dropped the same amount of Land Positions and/or Landing Ships/Minesweepers?

No the starting positions are as indicated on the map, and each player will be allocated that as per random drop, so 8 BS positions have to go into the start sequence, plus 32 other positions (if that's possible)

Since a player could potentially drop 3 or 4 more Landing Ships than his opponent, he could potentially start with a large advantage in autodeploy, but be disadvantaged in the amount of land territories he has. Is this just part of the luck?

well that depend on whether we go with the start allocation as above or we lay it out as per similar to Salem, and go with groups of random drop (as i have indicated on the map with what i thought was roughly even distribution.

Will the normal deployment of 1 army for every 3 territories apply?

at this stage yes. don't see why not, unless u can think of some reason not to, but i don't think it is an issue at start....could be wrong.

[iancanton]

thanks for ur efforts to make a light-coloured map for me. much appreciated!

A couple of questions/concerns cairns. A major concern I have is the large number of armies players start out with. We saw what kind of problem that presents in Pot Mosbi. I know there needs to be some buffer there with the losing condition, but those large stacks could make it too advantageous to go first.

4. or if you feel the numbers are too high...we can drop each start position by 3 to reduce the risk that someone will have lucky first dice.

6 on each landing ship is more reasonable. if someone deploys on a landing ship at the start, then the initial stack will be 6 plus 2-auto-deploy plus 3 deployment, giving 11 instead of 14. this is still high-ish, but is it decisively so?

I don't like that the two land batteries on Gendarmerie and Gaba Teppe have unrestrained ability to bombard the Landing Ships. Those two regions seem to be unnaturally powerful with the ability to bombard my opponents starting positions before he has a chance to play.

Well drop the starting numbers there also by three or more.

some players will start with an extra landing ship and others an extra minesweeper. do the minesweepers have anything to compensate for their lack of a +2 auto-deploy? or do we have 3 land batteries and pair them with the minesweepers?

ian.

[cairnswk]

thanks for ur efforts to make a light-coloured map for me. much appreciated!

NPs. glad i could help.

[cairnswk]

...

A couple of questions/concerns cairns. A major concern I have is the large number of armies players start out with. We saw what kind of problem that presents in Pot Mosbi. I know there needs to be some buffer there with the losing condition, but those large stacks could make it too advantageous to go first.

4. or if you feel the numbers are too high...we can drop each start position by 3 to reduce the risk that someone will have lucky first dice.

6 on each landing ship is more reasonable. if someone deploys on a landing ship at the start, then the initial stack will be 6 plus 2-auto-deploy plus 3 deployment, giving 11 instead of 14. this is still high-ish, but is it decisively so?

we could always drop minimum deploy to 1 or 2 to reduce that 3, lessening the 11 even more to say 9.

so are you happy with the other "9"s on land starts? are they too high also?

I don't like that the two land batteries on Gendarmerie and Gaba Teppe have unrestrained ability to bombard the Landing Ships. Those two regions seem to be unnaturally powerful with the ability to bombard my opponents starting positions before he has a chance to play.

Well drop the starting numbers there also by three or more.

some players will start with an extra landing ship and others an extra minesweeper. do the minesweepers have anything to compensate for their lack of a +2 auto-deploy? or do we have 3 land batteries and pair them with the minesweepers?
ian.

well, there are 7 starts on turkish side....
my idea was hoping that according somewhat to history....someone would get in there early and have a go at the landing craft...although i would be happy to drop those 9s on the turkish side to 6s if need be.
...and we could also make the mine-sweepers +2/+1 autodeploy to make them fair and match the landing craft?

[iancanton]

so are you happy with the other "9"s on land starts? are they too high also?

yes, i see no need for more than 3 on the land starts and landing craft.

can the minesweepers move in both directions?

the forts can bombard regions that are in sight of the dardanelles or narrows. is this everything below and to the right of the peninsula, for example, L3?

ian.

[cairnswk]

can the minesweepers move in both directions?

MS1,2,3 are starting positions and that area is designed to get those starting positions through the Narrows to land.
there is no bonus for minesweepers, so moving in both directions is kind of irrelevant, as these MS's are bombardable if players want to use them.
I have now placed the one-way arrows at land's edge only.

the forts can bombard regions that are in sight of the dardanelles or narrows. is this everything below and to the right of the peninsula, for example, L3?
ian.

i've changed that to "Forts bombard sea positions in the Narrows or Dardanelles"
this should make it clearer.

so are you happy with the other "9"s on land starts? are they too high also?

yes, i see no need for more than 3 on the land starts and landing craft.

ah...wait a minute....previously you stated:

6 on each landing ship is more reasonable.

so which is it to be? 3 or 6? on landing craft.

For the moment on V29 update...i've changed the land positions to 3 starts and left the landing craft at 6.
Also added that Min, Deploy is 1, not 3.

[iancanton]

can the minesweepers move in both directions?

MS1,2,3 are starting positions and that area is designed to get those starting positions through the Narrows to land.
there is no bonus for minesweepers, so moving in both directions is kind of irrelevant, as these MS's are bombardable if players want to use them.
I have now placed the one-way arrows at land's edge only.

it's a valid question, since a player might want to eliminate an opponent's minesweepers but have no access to forts for bombardment.

the forts can bombard regions that are in sight of the dardanelles or narrows. is this everything below and to the right of the peninsula, for example, L3?
ian.

i've changed that to "Forts bombard sea positions in the Narrows or Dardanelles"
this should make it clearer.

clearer still will be a slightly lighter shade of green-blue for the dardanelles and narrows, starting gradually east of L5.

Also added that Min, Deploy is 1, not 3.

the landing craft ought to be reasonably safe from the first attack of the game. i dislike the minimum deploy being 1: not only does this reduce choice of deployment and relatively increase the influence of dice, but can lead to a slow, lingering death where a player with 1 region cannot surprise an opponent who deems it advantageous to keep him alive a bit longer.

i've changed the land positions to 3 starts and left the landing craft at 6.

pair kum kale with enrenkui as silver positions? let in pepe border dumbrek and let kum kale land battery be a separate region starting as n1 or n2, so minesweepers have a chance while letting kum kale be vulnerable from more locations?

ian.