Seeking advice for El Aurens v2

[Boco]

This is a long post, but I could really use some advice.

As I develop El Aurens, v2, I wanted to get some ideas from the community on how to tackle some aspects of the scenario. El Aurens focuses on the campaigns in Egypt, Sudan, Arabia, Palestine, and Syria during WWI. It's a wargame simulation. I've tried hard to create the same historical restrictions and opportunities that faced the original commanders , and yet make it fun, too.

Here's where I could use some help. Strategically, the Allies chose to slog it head-to-head with the Turks all the way from Suez to Aleppo. They chose this, despite having naval supremacy and an exposed Turkish seaward flank. Why? There were several reasons. First and foremost, Gallipoli was an unmitigated strategic disaster. Everyone feared that a Levantine invasion would be a repeat. Second, the French forbade the English from invading Syria. True, DLG could have ignored their wishes, as he later did anyway, but there would have been repercussions elsewhere. Third, a Levantine invasion was logistically tricky. An invasion that failed to capture either Jaffa, Haifa, Beirut, Tripoli, or Alexandretta would face Gallipoli's fate. Allied sealift was limited and vulnerable. All of these ports were mined (sparsely), and U-Boats were a constant threat.

So, how should I handle it in EA v2? In EA v1, I simply sealed off most of the coast with invulnerable mines, forcing the player to use the historical strategy — not fun for the player, but easy to design.

For v2 I'd like to give the player more freedom (with consequences). I think I can limit the sealift by limiting the number of available troopships. Minefield values can be tweaked so that they're a nuisance rather than an impermeable barrier. They should cause the loss of a unit or two, but not more.

What about U-Boats? Should I use them only in a direct sense? That is, when minefields are destroyed and/or ports captured, U-Boats appear off the coast.
Or...should I also incorporate them in a strategic interdiction role as well? Rope off the Levantine coast so that land units must travel via airport from Egypt to Cyprus before transports take them to the coast. This 'air' movement can be intercepted by civ2 fighter units (but the dialogs refer to U-Boats). IIRC, the interception rate is not huge, but you're going to lose units. The problem lies in 'roping off' the Levantine coast. How do you allow the Allies to bombard the coast but not land troops and bypass the U-Boat interdiction.

Or is strategic interdiction no fun to face as a player?

Finally, what should the repercussions be for ticking off the French? Their direct contribution to the theater was tiny.

Any suggestions?

[Mercator]

How about allowing the player to land on the coast, but make it really hard to advance away from the coast?

That would still make it possible for the player to go by sea. But you could make it more or less desirable.

Say, how about placing a strip of impassible terrain units all along the coast a few tiles inland. Giving just enough space to attack the coastal cities, but not enough to advance further inland. Then set the home city of this impassible barrier to nearby inland cities. But, set the home city of the impassible barrier to the coastal cities around those critical cities you mentioned (Jaffa, Haifa, etc.).

This way you must conquer the area over land before it becomes fully accessible by sea. Landing troops will only start becoming useful after you've conquered the area inland. They'd only be helpful for reinforcements then.

The only exception will be the critical coastal cities. It will be possible to launch attacks around these cities. If you capture one of those you'd get a narrow corridor through the barrier. That makes the attack by sea still an option, but probably much harder to do.

Fine-tuning the barrier placement can help make certain approaches more desirable than others.

On the more technical side I just had a thought. What happens if you would give the barrier to an allied barbarian civ (e.g. to avoid zone of control), but still home them to the Turks (that is, have them homed to a city of a different civ)? This would require hex-editing though.


And another idea... Instead of an impassible barrier, perhaps you could give the coastal cities special immobile units with high-defense. But have those units homed to inland cities. Killing the high-defense units via a coastal approach should be doable but really hard.
The alternative, attacking by land, would mean the high-defense unit got disbanded earlier so it wouldn't be as hard to take the same city by land.


In any case, I know nothing about the historical situation and I haven't tested these idea either, but...

[Boco]

I'll experiment with your first . It's a good idea. The second I've already got in place. That's how I simulate the tenuous Turk supply lines.

EAV2 also has some serious channeling caused by judicious use of mountain terrain. I found there are several coastal ranges (okay, slightly inland) in Lebanon, Syria, and Hatay that would have caused problems for coastal invaders akin to those faced in Gallipoli and Salonika.

In the screenie, the unit info for the stack in the selected square (south of Beirut) is listed in the inset above Riyaq.

[Boco]

My explanation of indirect U-boat interdiction was as clear as mud. Let's try it with a pic.

The NE Med Sea is blocked off with boundary units (orange-red x's). Historically, the French Navy operated in this section. The RN kept largely to the south of this area.

One thing I'm playing with is to activate Famagusta as a RN shore base via a tech. The only way to get to it from Egypt is to 'sealift troops' (use airlifts between airports under Famagusta and Alexandria). These can be intercepted by German U-Boats (fighters). Once in Famagusta, land units can be shipped in Transports to land on the Asian shore.

• This introduces a strategic risk to the amphibious flanking option.
• I'm limiting the player's naval mobility. Ships spend the game on one side of the boundary or the other.

Is the the ability to simulate interdiction in this manner worth this cost?

[Edit]Note that this is a pre-SpriteGen screenie. Eventually, the unit keys will disappear from the Boundary and Minefield units. [/Edit]

[Sarsstock]

Boco this scenario is looking great from a graphics perspective at least, of that I am certain. This may be a silly question but where can I download a copy of El Aurens v1? If I play the first edition I'll have a much better grasp of the scenario's gameplay and possibly a better chance of contributing to v2's development .

[Case]

Re: Seeking advice for El Aurens v2

Originally posted by Boco
For v2 I'd like to give the player more freedom (with consequences). I think I can limit the sealift by limiting the number of available troopships.

IMO that would be the best option. Limiting the availability of naval gunfire support should have similar results.

Finally, what should the repercussions be for ticking off the French? Their direct contribution to the theater was tiny.

Some kind of penalty to reflect worse post-war relations perhaps? With the British making a vital, and very costly, contribution to the defence of mainland France there was nothing the French were going to do during the war. However, invading the French sphere of influence could have greatly harmed Franco-British relations after the war, with all sorts of interesting consequences (no alliance in 1939 being the most extreme of these).

By the way Dave, new orders of battle for the theatre are currently being regularly posted at www.orbat.com

[fairline]

For what it's worth Dave, I kinda prefer being forced into the land offensive towards Palestine. I may be alone here, but I prefer scenarios that simulate a historical situation as closely as possible (which EA does superbly ); I realise that a seaborne offensive was an outside option for the British but, as you've already said the fiasco in the Dardanelles probably precluded any further amphibious ops in the Med. However, a guy on this forum claims to have read about a potential amphibious op in Palestine: http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/fo...p/t-19762.html

That said, I guess the more free-thinking players would probably welcome the option. Make it tricky though. The air-intercept U-boat idea sounds good, although I thought that air-interdiction success rate in civ was pretty high (is it linked to the proximity of the airlift to nearest city with an enemy fighter?)

[Boco]

Okay, it seems that vox populi votes for hamstringing by conventional methods—limited naval forces, nasty AI deployments, and restrictive geography—rather than strategic interdiction. I'll see if I can make it work.

Thanks for the link Fairline. The push to plan an invasion at Alexandretta peaked in October, 1915. It was being considered as a relief option for Gallipoli. Kitchener was the highest ranking proponent, and much of his Cairo gang was for it. The French sent their refusal to permit the invasion in 11/15. AFAIK and as you suspect, no actual planning took place.

Btw, for some reason 33% sticks in my mind for the intercept rate. I tested it years ago.

Currently, the player is given a choice of strategic options on turn 1. One of the options is an invasion. My aim is to make it viable to capture a city, but only with substantial casualties. That will hurt you when it comes to counting up points for victory.

Case, thanks much for the OOB tips. After EAv2 is done, I'll work up that Sinai/Palestine (1916-1918) OOB I mentioned (if it's still needed). Orbat.com becomes more impressive each time I visit, but are you sure that their staff (incl Forum Editors) are reputable?

Sarstock, the art should be good. I shamelessly grabbed all the best work I could find. I also mercilessly badgered Fairline, Case, techumseh, Catfish, and many others. [Edit]Some of the flags may seem familiar to you. [/Edit] The only link to V1 was in the old forum before its erasing. I'll see if I can dig up the zips again.

[jim panse]

I have my version of v1 still somewhere (in my scenario folder) on my PC ... just post if you shall need it

[Case]

Another option is to allow the British player to build as many transport ships as they want, with each ship costing a lot and having the settler flag so it eats up resources (assuming that this works for naval units!). This would stimulate the very resource-intensive nature of amphibious operations, which simply couldn't be laid on at short notice with WW1 technology. Until the development of dedicated amphibious shipping in WW2, the first step in any amphibious operations was to pull dozens of civilian ships out of trade and leave them sitting at anchor at an obscure port until the invasion was ready. The false start of the Galipoli expedition in 1915 clearly illustrates why this was highly wasteful.

Originally posted by Boco
Thanks for the link Fairline. The push to plan an invasion at Alexandretta peaked in October, 1915. It was being considered as a relief option for Gallipoli.

A relief for Gallipoli!? Whoever came up with that idea obviously ended up planning French grand strategy in Indochina in the early 1950s (how best to relieve Dien Bin Phiu? - by intensifying a major offensive in the coastal sector of the Red River Delta, of course ).

Case, thanks much for the OOB tips. After EAv2 is done, I'll work up that Sinai/Palestine (1916-1918) OOB I mentioned (if it's still needed). Orbat.com becomes more impressive each time I visit, but are you sure that their staff (incl Forum Editors) are reputable?

The forum editor is a total deadbeat. Everyone else is very good at their job though.

[AGRICOLA]

Here's some feedback from a player who downloaded El Aurens six months ago, tried to play it, and gave up before completing the first turn.

The following are the straws that broke the camel's back.

1. I couldn't get the Guide to open with any software that comes with XP.
2. The heads of the health bars for all civs are the same yellow color. This makes unit ID extremely difficult, especially as there is great similarity in some of the unit icons. I also find that the red-yellow-green edging of the health bars to be of no help. It just adds to the visual clutter.
3. A file explaining the meaning of the Arabic terms would be most helpful as would some background on various unfamiliar units and improvements such as 8nci Ordu, Ikhawan and Qasr. I found that I was constantly having to refer to the minimal info available in the Pedia.
4. A writeup of the political alignments, alliances and goals of the various civs would help to clarify the overall situation. I doubt if I'm the only player who is unfamiliar with this segment of WWI.
5. The resource window in the city screen has little color contrast between food and trade, and the pickaxes (shields) almost disappear between the food and the trade icons. This is not unique to El Aurens. Virtually all current scens have very artistic icons for food, resources and trade. Unfortunately, none are designed to be instantly recognized and differentiated by color and shape as in vanilla CIV2.


To be fair to the scenario, some of my problems may be of my own making. Since making the changes to the TOT folder needed to play Market Garden, I've been downloading scen zips to an appropriately named subfolder in the Game Download folder (Desktop), extracting the files to a new Desktop folder and starting up TOT. This has worked fine for Market Garden, Red October and the scens under development, Dictator and Empire of the Rising Sun. Perhaps installation of El Aurens needs some additional changes that I'm not aware of.

Is there any possibility that the next version might have a second, optional set of RULES, EVENTS etc. files that use English terms as much as possible to give players the option of not having to learn Arabic?

[fairline]

You are definitely missing out John: this is truly one of the best civ scenarios there is. Was there a static.spr file in the download? I recall that Boco forgot to include it in the zip when it was first posted. This will screw things up graphically.

It's a very structured scenario that requires following a fairly set path, which some players may find disconcerting (but is a huge plus for me - it really simulates perfectly the events in the Middle East in WW!). For this reason it is essential to read the guide before playing. BTW, I thought the guide was html?

I think some of your concerns are being addressed by version 2 BTW. I can only plead that you give it a chance: it's an epic

[AGRICOLA]

Thanks for your advice Gareth. Yes, there is a static.spr file in the download. The guide is html but I can't open the whole thing or find any any directions on to how to access it during the game.

Originally posted by fairline
It's a very structured scenario that requires following a fairly set path, which some players may find disconcerting.

Unfortunately, that has been the kiss of death to my enjoyment of a scen ever since I tried Nemo's Second Front, the ultimate in structured scenarios. It has just about no freedom of action for players. Lafayette tried it after I posted some negative comments about it. His conclusions were the same as mine . . . . the scen is technically superb but an absolute bore to play. Perhaps that is why there is little mention of it in the forums.

It seems that I'm too much of a chaotic freethinker/gadfly/blithe spirit to follow the straight and narrow in structured scenarios. I do much better with ones where anything goes. My latest attempt at playtesting, kobayashi's structured and tough Dainichi Sekai Taisen, worked out a strategy for an easy Japanese victory. I truly consider that his calling the strategy "bizarre" to be one of the nicest compliments that I have ever received.


I'll certainly try the next version of El Aurens. You and others who have praised it cannot all be mistaken.

[Boco]

Originally posted by AGRICOLA
Here's some feedback from a player who downloaded El Aurens six months ago, tried to play it, and gave up before completing the first turn.

Ouch , but finally a critique that isn't a reaction to the art.

1. I couldn't get the Guide to open with any software that comes with XP.

It opens with Explorer, but not Opera. The file is very hard to maintain, and will probably be replaced. Which is better htm, rtf, or xls?

2. The heads of the health bars for all civs are the same yellow color. This makes unit ID extremely difficult, especially as there is great similarity in some of the unit icons. I also find that the red-yellow-green edging of the health bars to be of no help. It just adds to the visual clutter.

The initial offering did indeed lack the static.spr for about 48 hours. It was essential for showing civilization colors. I chose to show them as undiluted masks in the icon area rather than as grayed out civ colors in the unit key.

It appears that you are in the majority regarding the Mercator meter on the health bars. No other scen uses them. Back to the drawing board on that.

3. A file explaining the meaning of the Arabic terms would be most helpful as would some background on various unfamiliar units and improvements such as 8nci Ordu, Ikhawan and Qasr. I found that I was constantly having to refer to the minimal info available in the Pedia.

I've almost eliminated the use of Turkish to label units. The sole survivor is Jandarma (= Gendarmes = paramilitary police). Asiret Gönüllü are now Tribal Vols, 8nci Ordu (= 8th Army) is now Trench Line. Arabic is still used to describe improvements and selected units. Generally, wherever the official histories or Lawrence used Arabic, I did the same. That means, Ikhawan still describe Sanussi and Wahhabi holy-scholar/warriors, Agayl describe tribal mercenaries, and Qasr still means city defenses. I'm reluctant to eliminate all Arabic references, since they add atmosphere. After all the scenario's name is El Aurens, not Lawrence. That said, however, I'll revisit the language to make it more accessible.

A glossary is an excellent idea. I'll write an external one and also see whether I can put one in an easily accessible place within ToT.

Perhaps the greatest remaining language hurdle is the use of Arabic in @Terrain. If there is an accessible glossary, would Arabic remain a problem here?

4. A writeup of the political alignments, alliances and goals of the various civs would help to clarify the overall situation. I doubt if I'm the only player who is unfamiliar with this segment of WWI.

Good idea. It's on the list.

5. The resource window in the city screen has little color contrast between food and trade, and the pickaxes (shields) almost disappear between the food and the trade icons. This is not unique to El Aurens. Virtually all current scens have very artistic icons for food, resources and trade. Unfortunately, none are designed to be instantly recognized and differentiated by color and shape as in vanilla CIV2.

I was using generic ToT food and Trade icons. I changed pickaxes for v2. After your comment, I've started playing with shading and background.

To be fair to the scenario, some of my problems may be of my own making. Since making the changes to the TOT folder needed to play Market Garden, I've been downloading scen zips to an appropriately named subfolder in the Game Download folder (Desktop), extracting the files to a new Desktop folder and starting up TOT. This has worked fine for Market Garden, Red October and the scens under development, Dictator and Empire of the Rising Sun. Perhaps installation of El Aurens needs some additional changes that I'm not aware of.

El Aurens is unique to date in its use of Static.spr, but I don't think that requires an unusual directory arrangement (just need to have the file in the installation zip ). Your problems with the Guide.htm could stem from either the use of a browser other than Explorer or installation of the supporting files in the wrong folder. When I get to that stage in EAv2, I'll make sure the instructions are clear.

Is there any possibility that the next version might have a second, optional set of RULES, EVENTS etc. files that use English terms as much as possible to give players the option of not having to learn Arabic?

Most likely, no. It's hard enough to maintain one version of these files. I've toned down the use of Asian terms substantially for v2 — there are only 7 Arabic terms in @Improvements and 8 in @Units. A few of the remaining ones are pretty commonplace: Souk, Masjid, Gurkhas, and Mujahid. I think the solution lies in your other suggestion to use a glossary. I do believe that the use of some Arabic is important for atmosphere.

Unfortunately, that [a structured scenario] has been the kiss of death to my enjoyment of a scen ever since I tried Nemo's Second Front, the ultimate in structured scenarios.

El Aurens will never appeal to everyone . I've taken a lot of notice of the criticisms of 2nd Front. So I'm trying to allow a lot of freedom of choice in EA. However, historical accuracy is important to me as well. There are certain logistical and political limitations that I've designed into the scenario. Historically, no one, not even an "Easterner" like Lloyd George or Lawrence, wanted this theater to be flooded heavy artillery and tanks, even if it were logistically possible. The Arabs, friend and foe alike, were not very tolerant of Western troops in their territory. I'm afraid players who like to purge their armies to build one or two über unit types and conquer the map won't like EA. My target is the player who likes to make the most with the units at hand (in EA, that's a varied mix). The opportunity for creativity lies in how you use those units. My goal is to simulate the challenges facing the Allies, but not enforce their solution.

[techumseh]

Dave, I agree with Fairline about the historical approach being the best one.

What were the real limitations on the British, aside from fear of casualties? If it was shipping, then control the availability and capacity of transports - don't allow them to be built. BTW, since you don't have transports in the game, how would the British units get to the Levant at all?

If it were French objections, then what would be the consequences of the British proceeding anyway? Reduced French cooperation in other theatres probably - so perhaps cut down on future British reinforcements, or make a key wonder obsolete or unbuildable if a certain trigger is hit.

Or maybe the French would send some of their own troops. Can you use the Italian civ as French and put some annoying allied forces in the way of the British?

Perhaps the most likely reason that the Levant strategy was not undertaken is that this was a secondary theatre and the British didn't have the resources to pull it off alone. Before 1918, the Turkish reaction would have been fierce, and the Germans would likely have sent help. One way to handle it might be to allow the operation, but trigger strong reinforcements for the Turks, perhaps including German forces.

I did something similar with Market-Garden, when my pesky playtester kept driving up the west side of the map instead of up the middle where he was supposed to go. I added extra German reinforcements, triggered by the capture of certain towns on the west side. The alternate plan was not prohibited, just more difficult than the traditional one. More options for the human player = more fun!