|
|
Post by Emma de Normandie on Sept 26, 2020 11:53:29 GMT -6
Will there and should there be possessions/bases implemented in the regions of the Black Sea and the Persian Gulf?  Let's start with the Black Sea. The game has possessions in all over the world and does a pretty good job at trying to include relevant areas in the spectrum of military conflicts. But there is none in the Black Sea region. Traditionally, historically, and realistically, this region has been a huge fighting spot and birth bed of naval conflicts, as it involves many naval interests, from Russian/Soviet Union to Ukrainian and Turkish. It was strategically important in the Eastern front of WW2 and continued to be a competitive ground for the USSR and USA after 1945. Cities such as Istanbul, Sevastopol and Odessa would be wonderful additions to the game, I believe.  As for the Persian Gulf, the Persian Corridor was critical to the supply lines of the USSR in WW2 and the UK even invaded Iran/Persia with the Soviet Troops to ensure the safety and security of the supply lines. It goes to show how important the region is to major naval powers. It continues to be a hotspot for military conflicts till this day. Cities and bases such as Bahrain(US Navy Central Command), Dubai(Port of Jebel Ali), Kuwait, Qatar(Largest US Base in the Middle East), Fujairah Naval Base(UAE), Port of Duqm(Oman), Bandar Abbas(Iran Naval Base), Bandar Bushehr(Iran Naval Base) are all important bases/possessions in the regions, and should be welcomed into the game, I believe. In general, this amazing game draws its inspirations from true, realistic, and historical information, and an expansion to include more bases would make it more fun. Does anyone else have any inputs or ideas? Or has anyone thought about this before? |
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Sept 26, 2020 12:31:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 27, 2020 13:39:54 GMT -6
theres a mod with edited map with black sea. works fine to me.
i have a map with adriatic, black sea and baltic over the edited map for rtw1 mod porting new ports and adding a few more posession and its really good to balance. AH and Russia are harder to block. The posession in black sea could be taked by other countries, for example France taking Rumania and black sea become a hot spot in next wear, also give Russia a easy acess to med (having them lock in baltic).
Persina gulf dont see to be any avantage with the big sea division from mapv3 from rtw1 mod
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 27, 2020 14:51:43 GMT -6
I believe that the Persian Gulf should be added at least in 1922. Oil was discovered in the region around 1908 but it wasn't until 1930 that real discoveries were made. This could have happened much earlier, because the US had the best oil in the early 20th century. This could be very important for the UK, Japan and many European nations. Italy and France would argue over the oil. Transportation of oil via tankers could be a source of trade raiding to stop oil from reaching an enemy.
If the UK goes to war with the USA, then she will be cutoff from oil. She would have to get oil from the Persian Gulf region and ship it by tanks through Red Sea, Suez Canal through the Mediterranean. Any nation at war with her could intercept those shipments.
|
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Oct 2, 2020 4:08:24 GMT -6
Cities such as Istanbul, Sevastopol and Odessa would be wonderful additions to the game, I believe. Istanbul, actually, is basically the reason that the Black Sea isn't part of the game. For the entire period covered by the game, there were treaties in force governing the passage of warships through the Turkish Straits. And the reason those treaties were in place is that the only way into or out of the Black Sea goes right through Istanbul. The Turks were naturally very, very nervous about the prospect of a naval battle erupting in the middle of their capital (and even after it ceased being their capital in 1922, it remained their largest city and their cultural and economic hub, so they're still worried about that). As a result it's in their interest to not allow belligerents in a war that they're not part of to transit the straits. It's also in Russia's interest not to allow non-Black Sea navies to enter the Black Sea in force, and in other navies' interests not to allow Russia to transfer ships through the straits freely. So while there might be battles that occur in the Black Sea, it's generally rare that they'll involve ships that weren't built on the Black Sea. Therefore, it's pretty much irrelevant to the rest of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 2, 2020 7:07:11 GMT -6
Cities such as Istanbul, Sevastopol and Odessa would be wonderful additions to the game, I believe. Istanbul, actually, is basically the reason that the Black Sea isn't part of the game. For the entire period covered by the game, there were treaties in force governing the passage of warships through the Turkish Straits. And the reason those treaties were in place is that the only way into or out of the Black Sea goes right through Istanbul. The Turks were naturally very, very nervous about the prospect of a naval battle erupting in the middle of their capital (and even after it ceased being their capital in 1922, it remained their largest city and their cultural and economic hub, so they're still worried about that). As a result it's in their interest to not allow belligerents in a war that they're not part of to transit the straits. It's also in Russia's interest not to allow non-Black Sea navies to enter the Black Sea in force, and in other navies' interests not to allow Russia to transfer ships through the straits freely. So while there might be battles that occur in the Black Sea, it's generally rare that they'll involve ships that weren't built on the Black Sea. Therefore, it's pretty much irrelevant to the rest of the game. I would like to submit this link for your reconsideration. The purpose is to illustrate that the Black Sea and the Bosporus and Dardanelle's were important for, not only Turkey, and Russia, but possibly Austria-Hungary, UK and Italy. Please at least make it an option. www.turkeyswar.com/navy/naval-operations/ |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 2, 2020 11:43:15 GMT -6
Istanbul, actually, is basically the reason that the Black Sea isn't part of the game. For the entire period covered by the game, there were treaties in force governing the passage of warships through the Turkish Straits. And the reason those treaties were in place is that the only way into or out of the Black Sea goes right through Istanbul. The Turks were naturally very, very nervous about the prospect of a naval battle erupting in the middle of their capital (and even after it ceased being their capital in 1922, it remained their largest city and their cultural and economic hub, so they're still worried about that). As a result it's in their interest to not allow belligerents in a war that they're not part of to transit the straits. It's also in Russia's interest not to allow non-Black Sea navies to enter the Black Sea in force, and in other navies' interests not to allow Russia to transfer ships through the straits freely. So while there might be battles that occur in the Black Sea, it's generally rare that they'll involve ships that weren't built on the Black Sea. Therefore, it's pretty much irrelevant to the rest of the game. I would like to submit this link for your reconsideration. The purpose is to illustrate that the Black Sea and the Bosporus and Dardanelle's were important for, not only Turkey, and Russia, but possibly Austria-Hungary, UK and Italy. Please at least make it an option. www.turkeyswar.com/navy/naval-operations/Yes, if someone's fighting Russia in Southeastern Europe or the Middle-East they might want to go into the Black Sea to disrupt Russian shipping and Russia might want to send its ships into the Eastern Mediterranean for much the same reason. The problem, though, is that if the Ottoman Empire / Turkey is not in that war then they're not likely to be happy for someone to take a 200-mile trip through their territorial waters to attack Russia, because that's going to have repercussions for their future relations with Russia, and they don't want Russia to send its ships on a 200-mile trip through their territorial waters to attack someone else, because that's going to have repercussions on their future relations with powers that they could try to play off against Russia for their own purposes - and they especially don't want a naval battle between Russia and someone else to erupt in the middle of the Sea of Marmara or outside Istanbul or anywhere else in their territorial waters. Basically, if the Ottoman Empire / Turkey is neutral, allowing any belligerent's warships to make the passage through the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara, and the Bosporus is a lose-lose situation for them and so their best course of action is to oppose such a transgression against their neutrality.
Furthermore, if the Ottoman Empire / Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania are neutral, there's the issue that a non-Russian power operating in the Black Sea is probably operating about a thousand nautical miles from its nearest base, and similarly for Russia operating in the Eastern Mediterranean. Thus, you're looking at a high-risk operation - and, however bad Russian infrastructure may have been at the time, they can probably still more or less manage to support a battle front in Southeastern Europe or the Middle East without having completely secured their naval lines of communication in the Black Sea, seeing as they managed to do so in the First World War, so it's probably also a low-reward operation, essentially a high-risk harassment raid. Worse, the Black Sea is small, so a lot of the time you're in there you're going to be within striking range of any aircraft based in the region, further increasing the risks even if the only thing that aircraft can yet do is detect and report the presence of your ships.
Finally, there's that the Black Sea has no real strategic value in the game. I can't use it as a stepping-stone to another sea zone, because it's a dead end that only connects to the Mediterranean and if I'm not Russia and have colonies in the Black Sea then I should already have colonies in the Mediterranean while if I am Russia then it's of at best no value as a waystation between Northern Europe and Northeast Asia (N. Europe => Med => Indian Ocean => SEA => NEA is two turns less travel time as N. Europe => Med => Black Sea => Med => Indian Ocean => SEA => NEA, and either way my longest unsupported leg is three sea zones)... and if Britain (or anyone who has taken Egypt from Britain) doesn't let me use the Suez Canal then it's actually adding three turns to my travel time and increasing the longest unsupported leg of my trip by one sea zone (N. Europe => W. Africa => S. Africa => Indian Ocean => SEA => NEA is five turns and four unsupported sea zones, N. Europe => Med => Black Sea => Med => W. Africa => S. Africa => Indian Ocean => SEA => NEA is eight turns and five unsupported sea zones). Disrupting Russian shipping or defeating the Russian fleet in the Black Sea has no more value than doing so anywhere else, because the game barely models terrestrial campaigns, I can only blockade Russia in Northern Europe, and I probably can't invade Black Sea possessions due to some combination of distance, colony value, and lack of bases inside the Black Sea. I probably can't kick Russia out of the Black Sea, because any possessions that it would have there would likely be too valuable to take with 'normal' amounts of territory points at the peace table and they'd probably have a home territory there anyways, and as Russia I probably can't kick other powers out of the Black Sea, because none of the other powers are there to begin with. I probably don't have a good reason to take a colony there to fight Russia, either, since Britain, Germany, France, and Japan can all fight Russia in their own home waters while Austria-Hungary, Italy, and the USA probably don't want the burden of colonies in what would effectively be a dead-end backwater in the game, and the USA's too far from the Black Sea to get colonies there anyways unless they've already obtained a colony in the Mediterranean, which in turn requires obtaining a colony in at least one of the Indian Ocean, Northern Europe, or West Africa. Beyond that, the Black Sea would effectively be a Russian pond at the start of the game - Ukraine, Crimea, and the Caucasian States are all under the control of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union in the period covered by the game, if you don't count a brief period of independence in some areas after the Russian collapse in the First World War - and any other possessions that might be included in the sea zone would be neutral and thus only relevant if a random event lets someone claim one.
|
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Oct 3, 2020 12:39:45 GMT -6
and they especially don't want a naval battle between Russia and someone else to erupt in the middle of the Sea of Marmara or outside Istanbul... Outside Istanbul is the least of their concerns. If they're neutral and allow belligerent warships to transit the straits, they risk a naval battle *inside* Istanbul, which, for about the first half of the game, is their capital. It's like the US allowing a foreign fleet to sail up the Potomac, or Britain allowing a foreign fleet to sail up the Thames. The verbiage heads of state are accustomed to using for such proposals tends to be along the lines of "over my dead body". |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 3, 2020 14:33:42 GMT -6
and they especially don't want a naval battle between Russia and someone else to erupt in the middle of the Sea of Marmara or outside Istanbul... Outside Istanbul is the least of their concerns. If they're neutral and allow belligerent warships to transit the straits, they risk a naval battle *inside* Istanbul, which, for about the first half of the game, is their capital. It's like the US allowing a foreign fleet to sail up the Potomac, or Britain allowing a foreign fleet to sail up the Thames. The verbiage heads of state are accustomed to using for such proposals tends to be along the lines of "over my dead body". Uskudar (Skoutarion, Scutari, Chrysopolis) did not become a municipality of Istanbul until 1984; prior to that point, it was a separate city - and for the entire period covered by the game it was separated from Istanbul by about a mile of open water spanned by neither bridge nor tunnel, as the first bridge to cross the Bosphorus in the modern period was built in the 1970s and the only tunnel I know of across the Bosphorus only opened within the past decade. It was - and arguably still is - far more clearly a separate urban area from Istanbul than, say, Cambridge and Brookline are from Boston or Westminster and Southwark are from the City of London. |
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Oct 3, 2020 15:35:15 GMT -6
I would like to submit this link for your reconsideration. The purpose is to illustrate that the Black Sea and the Bosporus and Dardanelle's were important for, not only Turkey, and Russia, but possibly Austria-Hungary, UK and Italy. Please at least make it an option. www.turkeyswar.com/navy/naval-operations/Yes, if someone's fighting Russia in Southeastern Europe or the Middle-East they might want to go into the Black Sea to disrupt Russian shipping and Russia might want to send its ships into the Eastern Mediterranean for much the same reason. The problem, though, is that if the Ottoman Empire / Turkey is not in that war then they're not likely to be happy for someone to take a 200-mile trip through their territorial waters to attack Russia, because that's going to have repercussions for their future relations with Russia, and they don't want Russia to send its ships on a 200-mile trip through their territorial waters to attack someone else, because that's going to have repercussions on their future relations with powers that they could try to play off against Russia for their own purposes - and they especially don't want a naval battle between Russia and someone else to erupt in the middle of the Sea of Marmara or outside Istanbul or anywhere else in their territorial waters. Basically, if the Ottoman Empire / Turkey is neutral, allowing any belligerent's warships to make the passage through the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara, and the Bosporus is a lose-lose situation for them and so their best course of action is to oppose such a transgression against their neutrality.
Furthermore, if the Ottoman Empire / Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania are neutral, there's the issue that a non-Russian power operating in the Black Sea is probably operating about a thousand nautical miles from its nearest base, and similarly for Russia operating in the Eastern Mediterranean. Thus, you're looking at a high-risk operation - and, however bad Russian infrastructure may have been at the time, they can probably still more or less manage to support a battle front in Southeastern Europe or the Middle East without having completely secured their naval lines of communication in the Black Sea, seeing as they managed to do so in the First World War, so it's probably also a low-reward operation, essentially a high-risk harassment raid. Worse, the Black Sea is small, so a lot of the time you're in there you're going to be within striking range of any aircraft based in the region, further increasing the risks even if the only thing that aircraft can yet do is detect and report the presence of your ships.
Finally, there's that the Black Sea has no real strategic value in the game. I can't use it as a stepping-stone to another sea zone, because it's a dead end that only connects to the Mediterranean and if I'm not Russia and have colonies in the Black Sea then I should already have colonies in the Mediterranean while if I am Russia then it's of at best no value as a waystation between Northern Europe and Northeast Asia (N. Europe => Med => Indian Ocean => SEA => NEA is two turns less travel time as N. Europe => Med => Black Sea => Med => Indian Ocean => SEA => NEA, and either way my longest unsupported leg is three sea zones)... and if Britain (or anyone who has taken Egypt from Britain) doesn't let me use the Suez Canal then it's actually adding three turns to my travel time and increasing the longest unsupported leg of my trip by one sea zone (N. Europe => W. Africa => S. Africa => Indian Ocean => SEA => NEA is five turns and four unsupported sea zones, N. Europe => Med => Black Sea => Med => W. Africa => S. Africa => Indian Ocean => SEA => NEA is eight turns and five unsupported sea zones). Disrupting Russian shipping or defeating the Russian fleet in the Black Sea has no more value than doing so anywhere else, because the game barely models terrestrial campaigns, I can only blockade Russia in Northern Europe, and I probably can't invade Black Sea possessions due to some combination of distance, colony value, and lack of bases inside the Black Sea. I probably can't kick Russia out of the Black Sea, because any possessions that it would have there would likely be too valuable to take with 'normal' amounts of territory points at the peace table and they'd probably have a home territory there anyways, and as Russia I probably can't kick other powers out of the Black Sea, because none of the other powers are there to begin with. I probably don't have a good reason to take a colony there to fight Russia, either, since Britain, Germany, France, and Japan can all fight Russia in their own home waters while Austria-Hungary, Italy, and the USA probably don't want the burden of colonies in what would effectively be a dead-end backwater in the game, and the USA's too far from the Black Sea to get colonies there anyways unless they've already obtained a colony in the Mediterranean, which in turn requires obtaining a colony in at least one of the Indian Ocean, Northern Europe, or West Africa. Beyond that, the Black Sea would effectively be a Russian pond at the start of the game - Ukraine, Crimea, and the Caucasian States are all under the control of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union in the period covered by the game, if you don't count a brief period of independence in some areas after the Russian collapse in the First World War - and any other possessions that might be included in the sea zone would be neutral and thus only relevant if a random event lets someone claim one.
the game in geopolitic-structure is far away to be relevant the stambul analisys the political background built in should be deep and not only the 1vs 8. Its a pritty good analisys for the broken hoi iv where the naval combat its flooding... In some games the fun should fullfill the void, like baltic and black sea. and about high risk operations... go galipolli boi. |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 3, 2020 16:18:33 GMT -6
In some games the fun should fullfill the void, like baltic and black sea. and about high risk operations... go galipolli boi. Gallipoli is on the Mediterranean side; there is no reason why you'd need the Black Sea to be included in the game to 'go Gallipoli.'
As to fun... what, exactly, is 'fun' about operating in the Black Sea that can't be done in some other sea zone? I can't blockade Russia there and no power other than Russia will have bases there by default, so Russia's not going to have many ships there to fight, and there's no colonies worth taking there because it's a strategic dead-end and any colonial possessions there would likely be given high point values just like most of the rest of Russia's colonies, so what's the point of going into the Black Sea? If you want to operate in a sea zone where you have no bases and are within close striking distance of enemy airbases, there's already plenty of options for doing so except maybe if you're Britain, and none of them require that the Ottoman Empire / Turkey permits belligerent warships to make the ~200-mile trip through the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara, and the Bosphorus - something which, I might add, was attempted by two of the most powerful navies in the world and successfully opposed by the so-called sick man of Europe even after their armies while the aforementioned 'sick man' was fighting Russia in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, Russia and Britain in Persia, and Britain in various other parts of the Middle East.
Also, do not address me as 'boi.'
|
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Oct 5, 2020 15:02:29 GMT -6
Outside Istanbul is the least of their concerns. If they're neutral and allow belligerent warships to transit the straits, they risk a naval battle *inside* Istanbul, which, for about the first half of the game, is their capital. It's like the US allowing a foreign fleet to sail up the Potomac, or Britain allowing a foreign fleet to sail up the Thames. The verbiage heads of state are accustomed to using for such proposals tends to be along the lines of "over my dead body". Uskudar (Skoutarion, Scutari, Chrysopolis) did not become a municipality of Istanbul until 1984; prior to that point, it was a separate city - and for the entire period covered by the game it was separated from Istanbul by about a mile of open water spanned by neither bridge nor tunnel, as the first bridge to cross the Bosphorus in the modern period was built in the 1970s and the only tunnel I know of across the Bosphorus only opened within the past decade. It was - and arguably still is - far more clearly a separate urban area from Istanbul than, say, Cambridge and Brookline are from Boston or Westminster and Southwark are from the City of London. OK, so not inside Istanbul, but the point remains that it's worse than simply a naval battle within sight of your capital: there are urban areas within a mile of the combatants on either side, and one of those urban areas is your capital. And whether it's one city or two, without a bridge or tunnel there will be a ton of boat traffic to get caught in the crossfire. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 5, 2020 16:24:18 GMT -6
You are all aware that on the eastern side of the Bosporus, the distance at its narrowest is only 1.12 miles. On the Dardanelles, at Gallipoli it is only 2.16 miles. from Gallipoli to Cardak. Those are not very long distances to cross. This is just to add information to the discussion. The depth of water varies from about 43 to 361 feet with average being 213 ft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emma de Normandie on Oct 9, 2020 22:23:35 GMT -6
Okay...So far I've gathered enough information from every post to come to the conclusion that the Black Sea topic would perhaps take a back seat and relax for some time. Meanwhile, Tthe Persian Gulf topic doesn't seem to be getting the same level of attention or interest. Some simple additions of cities along the Gulf should be marginally easier to implement, right? Just treat those cities as more "Djibouti"-like-possessions within Indian Ocean, a sea zone that is already established?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 10, 2020 7:17:09 GMT -6
Okay...So far I've gathered enough information from every post to come to the conclusion that the Black Sea topic would perhaps take a back seat and relax for some time. Meanwhile, Tthe Persian Gulf topic doesn't seem to be getting the same level of attention or interest. Some simple additions of cities along the Gulf should be marginally easier to implement, right? Just treat those cities as more "Djibouti"-like-possessions within Indian Ocean, a sea zone that is already established? I would include the Persian Gulf but only after 1922. Although oil was found in 1908, actual large quantities of crude were not discovered until the 1930's when it was exploited by the British. I would suggest that this gives the game some flexibility. One qualifier is that it is only recently that major fleet ships were threatened in the Persian Gulf by small missile boats. I leave to the team to make the decision. |
|
