GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!
10,366 Supporters
$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
14 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Pursuit of Glory» Forums » General

Subject: Beachheads.... is it me? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Kevin Anderson
United States
Elk Grove Village
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In a game where infantry divisions can hold off corps I feel the grumbling about how difficult it is to get ashore during an Invasion is the main reason why it's not attempted that often. Even a Kitchener's Invasion can be spoiled by an opportune "Surprise".
Now I grant this is the First World War and Invasions are not D-Day but I always felt that being on a Beachhead meant that the sea was behind you. In that case should the defenders continue to get a fire first bonus for being behind a Water Crossing after the first attack?
Take that away and maybe that Gallipoli sub-map might get some use.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Riidi WW
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
The way I see it, the allies can only pull off a devastating amphibious invasion against an unprepared CP player at a moment of strategic surprise. That seems fine, to me. The Gallipoli campaign was a disaster and being able to stretch the turks thin just with a THREAT of landing in syria or gallipoli is good enough, in my opinion, that we don't also need the allied player to be able to bull ashore even against a prepared and entrenched turk.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Anderson
United States
Elk Grove Village
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A3RKev wrote:
I always felt that being on a Beachhead meant that the sea was behind you. In that case should the defenders continue to get a fire first bonus for being behind a Water Crossing after the first attack?


This is really the main thing I wanted to hear about.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Riidi WW
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
A3RKev wrote:
A3RKev wrote:
I always felt that being on a Beachhead meant that the sea was behind you. In that case should the defenders continue to get a fire first bonus for being behind a Water Crossing after the first attack?


This is really the main thing I wanted to hear about.
I think they should. The point of the water crossing isn't that your troops are literally crossing water, it's the logistical and fire-support difficulties associated with supporting attacks in amphibious or river-crossing situations. So until you fully drive the turks out of seddul bahr or kum kale, it makes sense that you're still trying to set up artillery in bad positions or whatever.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Riidi WW
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
If being on a beachhead meant the water was behind you, why would they get a firefirst bonus on the first attack? What is conceptually different about the first (unsuccessful) attack off a beachhead from the second?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Anderson
United States
Elk Grove Village
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I just have to continue to remind myself that after all the extensive written Invasion rules, the Gallipoli sub-map, and four Invasion cards that the game seems constructed so that you really don't want to invade at all anyway.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Riidi WW
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
I generally agree, but they also function as a way to punish an overly greedy CP player. It forces them not to overcommit to Persia and Mesopotamia because Gallipoli or Syria might get got.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug DeMoss
United States
Stillwater
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I wouldn't agree - Salonika is almost necessary (you CAN do without it, but just having the beachhead to link Lemnos and Salonika is helpful), and if the Turks aren't defending Palestine heavily, an invasion there can be worthwhile.

I certainly WOULD agree that Gallipoli is usually a waste, but more because it detracts too much from where you want to be spending OPS at that point (Russia!), especially if the Turks have managed to get the subs played, which they usually do. I might make an exception if the Turks aren't giving me enough surface area to attack with the British Empire otherwise (you do want to find a use for those IN RPs, especially). But even then it's usually too many OPS that really need to be spent bleeding the Turks in Caucasia.

And speaking of Gallipoli, the most effective Gallipoli invasion I ever saw took place in 1918. Somehow the CP had never managed to get the subs card played. That took a few VP for relatively little investment.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.