Dardanelles Closed to Sea Movement

[zooooma]

I've yet to try the Dardanelles Closed to Sea Movement optional rule.  I figure it will be a good help to the Allies, but I'm not sure to what extent.    I'm assuming NOs, tech, and no fighter escorts and interceptors.  Does anyone have any experience?

I'd be keen to hear your comments, including specific bidding amounts (and what to spend them on).

Thanks!

[zooooma]

I've yet to try with the optional rule closing the Turkish passage.  I think that would help the Allies quite a bit (but maybe or maybe not enough).

I am inclined to think not enough. That said, a $5 bid to Egypt (namely, a tank) has a profound influence on the game - both in reducing G1 opening options and later North African (and sometimes Indian) havoc. Played many games now with bids in the 5-8 range. 8 is too much in my estimation, and 5 just about right.

With the pressure off Caucasus, Maybe Russia can spare a tank to help in India and/or North Africa.  This won't help against G1 of course, and won't be as coordinated as a UK tank would be.  Still, Dardanelles Closed to Sea Movement might be worth more than that one Russian tank.  In any case, I'm inclined to think that with Dardanelles Closed to Sea Movement the Allies can get away with at least a smaller bid.

[rockrobinoff]

With the pressure off Caucasus, Maybe Russia can spare a tank to help in India and/or North Africa.  This won't help against G1 of course, and won't be as coordinated as a UK tank would be.  Still, Dardanelles Closed to Sea Movement might be worth more than that one Russian tank.  In any case, I'm inclined to think that with Dardanelles Closed to Sea Movement the Allies can get away with at least a smaller bid.

I posted links on your FB wall. Lets play Darndanelles closed with no bid. You make a good point about the Russian tank.

[Corbeau Blanc]

Well, if you want to play with Dardanelles closed, you would need to close Baltic Sea / Danish straits too to make it fair.

Exemple, Force allies to hold both NWE and Norway to be able to go there. Like you need to hold both sides to cross Suez canal.

Historically,  the Danish Straits which separates Atlantic to Baltic was heavily mined / guarded and a direct amphibious assault on the North of Germany herself was impracticable.

Also for Dardanelles, I hate the dumb rule where Bulgaria cannot use the mediteranee side of the canal. This territory with a factory has huge strategic value.

The Danish Straits and Dardanelles are my biggest gripes in the game. Gibraltar could be also played that way as a canal.

the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_straits

[Sire Fred]

IMO, the game is equally balanced if we close the Dardanelle straight.

I really like the idea of closing the Danish straight too! It would allow the Germans to build some Kriegsmarine units with more safety.

[rockrobinoff]

Well, if you want to play with Dardanelles closed, you would need to close Baltic Sea / Danish straits too to make it fair.

the whole idea behind closing the dardanelles is to balance the game - closing off other areas is beside the point - historical accuracy also being close to irrelevant. a&a is not a WW2 simulator, its a board game with a ww2 theme.

[axis_roll]

Well, if you want to play with Dardanelles closed, you would need to close Baltic Sea / Danish straits too to make it fair.

Exemple, Force allies to hold both NWE and Norway to be able to go there. Like you need to hold both sides to cross Suez canal.

Historically,  the Danish Straits which separates Atlantic to Baltic was heavily mined / guarded and a direct amphibious assault on the North of Germany herself was impracticable.

Also for Dardanelles, I hate the dumb rule where Bulgaria cannot use the mediteranee side of the canal. This territory with a factory has huge strategic value.

The Danish Straits and Dardanelles are my biggest gripes in the game. Gibraltar could be also played that way as a canal.

the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_straits

That's not the official optional rule.
I think the op is trying to keep the discussion  in the realm of the official rules.

[axis_roll]

I've yet to try the Dardanelles Closed to Sea Movement optional rule.  I figure it will be a good help to the Allies, but I'm not sure to what extent.    I'm assuming NOs, tech, and no fighter escorts and interceptors.  Does anyone have any experience?

I'd be keen to hear your comments, including specific bidding amounts (and what to spend them on).

We play all the time with the Dardenelles closed in 1941.  We feel the Axis have a big advantage in 1941.  This optional rule helps not only to protect caucasus, but reduces the Italian can opener through Ukraine for German tanks to hit caucasus.

We also play with Escorts (to keep the game from becoming <an allied> bomber fest).  Not sure exactly who escorts hurts/helps more... but that discussion is for another thread 

[Corbeau Blanc]

Well, if you want to play with Dardanelles closed, you would need to close Baltic Sea / Danish straits too to make it fair.

Exemple, Force allies to hold both NWE and Norway to be able to go there. Like you need to hold both sides to cross Suez canal.

Historically,  the Danish Straits which separates Atlantic to Baltic was heavily mined / guarded and a direct amphibious assault on the North of Germany herself was impracticable.

Also for Dardanelles, I hate the dumb rule where Bulgaria cannot use the mediteranee side of the canal. This territory with a factory has huge strategic value.

The Danish Straits and Dardanelles are my biggest gripes in the game. Gibraltar could be also played that way as a canal.

the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_straits

That's not the official optional rule.
I think the op is trying to keep the discussion  in the realm of the official rules.

You mean official OPTIONAL rule.

My point being there is no way I would accept playing in a competitive environement with that optional rule without closing Danish strait.  

EDIT: I'd also like to point out the game is pretty balanced to start with and that rule tips the odds toward Allies. You'd need a pretty large bid for axis in the form of a sea unit in Baltic to be able to resist UK1 air attack.

[axis_roll]

Well, if you want to play with Dardanelles closed, you would need to close Baltic Sea / Danish straits too to make it fair.

Exemple, Force allies to hold both NWE and Norway to be able to go there. Like you need to hold both sides to cross Suez canal.

Historically,  the Danish Straits which separates Atlantic to Baltic was heavily mined / guarded and a direct amphibious assault on the North of Germany herself was impracticable.

Also for Dardanelles, I hate the dumb rule where Bulgaria cannot use the mediteranee side of the canal. This territory with a factory has huge strategic value.

The Danish Straits and Dardanelles are my biggest gripes in the game. Gibraltar could be also played that way as a canal.

the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_straits

That's not the official optional rule.
I think the op is trying to keep the discussion  in the realm of the official rules.

You mean official OPTIONAL rule.

I thought that's what I said   

The OP posts that it's OPTIONAL.

[axiswarlordhcv]

Well, if you want to play with Dardanelles closed, you would need to close Baltic Sea / Danish straits too to make it fair.

Exemple, Force allies to hold both NWE and Norway to be able to go there. You need to hold both sides to cross Suez canal.

Historically,  the Danish Straits which separates Atlantic to Baltic was heavily mined / guarded and a direct amphibious assault on the North of Germany herself was impracticable.

the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_straits

Exactly Correct! - especially as coastal guns easily covered the numerous <40km gaps.
Although, while I always play it that way, Allied subs are free to pass through the Kattegat if they survive a Mine Roll [1-3 Sink, 4-6 Pass]. 

This works really well when you add the following NO that was curiously omitted from AA50:
Germany: 
•   Gain 5 IPCs if Axis control Baltic [Sz5] - with no Allied naval units present, plus control the following adjacent territories: NW Europe, Germany, Poland, Baltic States, Finland, and Norway.
 Allied subs, even Russian, can be real thorns in the Axis side - although at least the German Navy does not just roll over and die so easy anymore, especially with AA Cruisers / Old BBs (incl. captured BB's/Cruisers fitted out for AA role).


You could also go further, if anyone plays with the Soviet Baltic Fleet accurately represented as the Eastern Baltic entrance (S of Finland) was also heavily mined by Germany/Finland during the 1st week of the attack from June 41.
[But thats a topic for a future thread.
PS: Don't forget to check out the following Improved China Mod:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15626.0 ]

[critmonster]

I always play this rule as the axis, I do not enforce it on my opponents in friendly FTF games though.

[fanofbond]

i personally find that that this evens the game to give no side a distinct advantage. 

[axis_roll]

i personally find that that this evens the game to give no side a distinct advantage. 

Yes, we concur, this is definetly a required rule for us in 1941!

In 1942, we roll at the start of the game to see if the straights are open or not.

It does change the game, especially with respect to the Italian navy's role in the game

[Vareel]

See, I personally feel no change at all in the game balance with this rule.  Italy should not be attacking russia with her navy anyway.  Italy should be taking as much as africa as she can, for as long as she can, and fortifying the daylights out of France, along with possibly sinking some allied boats and/or shooting down some allied planes.  The largest contribution they can make against Russia is a tank or two to East Poland and freeing up Germany Infantry from france.