@picard's Middle East 1974 Dip Variant

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

Starting a new thread for this.

Some background info:

The region is the Middle East.
The starting date is Jan. 1974, after the Yom Kippur War.
The mid-to-late 70s were a time of realignment in this region, from the decline of pan-Arabism with the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, to the rise of OPEC, to the Iranian Revolution. It's anyone's game, and that's just perfect for dip.

The 6 playing powers are:
Egypt (EG)
Iran (IR)
Iraq (IQ)
Israel (IL)
Saudi Arabia (SA)
Turkey (TK)

Here's the latest draft.



Tagging Tolbethessar to continue our convo from the RA.


As you can see, changes:


1. I took your suggestions on the Syria region. Aleppo is now an SC, main Syria is not. Izmir does not border Aleppo, but east Anatolya does.
2. The northern triangle gets new life. Armenia is now an SC, in addition to Azerbaijan. Tehran borders Azerbaijan, Ankara borders Armenia. I'm honestly not sure if this makes for a good enough triangle, with Iraq not being readily in it until 1975 at the earliest. 
3. Suez is no longer an SC.
4. I added land bridges between South Yemen and Ethiopia (to make the Red Sea triad more dynamic), and between UAE and Qatar (to make that corner more dynamic). I'm debating another between Sharm-El-Sheikh and Hejaz.

Points I'm debating:
1. Should Aswan touch the second Red Sea space as well?
2. Should I only have one SC in the Caucasus?
3. How to avoid Suez becoming a stalemate point?
4. Would it be beneficial to have a mechanic like 1812 Overture's Major Harbors, applying to Lebanon and the UAE (or other SCs) as a way to raise fleets around the Red Sea bottleneck?
5. What should starting unit placement look like? Other than Iran, (whose Gulf position warrants it) should there be any 2-fleet powers?

[Frederick the Great]

1. Aswan is the big blob of nothingness in Egypt right?

2. The Caucasus looks more inviting with two SCs, there's more incentive to go there compared to just a single SC in Azerbaijan.

3. Suez doesn't look like a stalemate point as such, however I think I have a solution for that (see #5).

4. UAE and Lebanon indeed should be ports like Koenigsberg and Co. in 1812, it makes the game more interesting especially in UAE's corner, where even a nation like Turkey can build a fleet. Same thing for Iran/Saudi building a fleet in Lebanon.

5. Egypt can be a two-fleet power, that can help overcome the stalemate in Suez (two units plus the Army forcing the Canal to be opened) and would also balance the game (as then Iran wouldn't be the only one with two fleets).

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

Jan 21, 2020 18:10:37 GMT Frederick the Great said:

1. Aswan is the big blob of nothingness in Egypt right?

2. The Caucasus looks more inviting with two SCs, there's more incentive to go there compared to just a single SC in Azerbaijan.

3. Suez doesn't look like a stalemate point as such, however I think I have a solution for that (see #5).

4. UAE and Lebanon indeed should be ports like Koenigsberg and Co. in 1812, it makes the game more interesting especially in UAE's corner, where even a nation like Turkey can build a fleet. Same thing for Iran/Saudi building a fleet in Lebanon.

5. Egypt can be a two-fleet power, that can help overcome the stalemate in Suez (two units plus the Army forcing the Canal to be opened) and would also balance the game (as then Iran wouldn't be the only one with two fleets).

Aswan is Egypt's southern SC.

My big concern with Suez isn't what Israel and Egypt will do, but what will happen if Turkey starts pushing out of the Med, or Iran/Iraq/SA into the Med. They'd have to bust through Suez, and I'm afraid that may be turned into a firm stalemate line.

[Tolbethessar]

Iran would probably be the least affected. Iraq being predominantly a land power and has only one port probably wouldn't necessarily care about the Suez at all.

Turkey and SA would be the worst affected by the Suez.

But in full truthfulness, nearly every water space IS a stalemate line on this map except for the tri-space Mediterranean. From the Suez all the way to Barsa, the water spaces are essentially one super-long strait. It's the nature of how the environs of the theater are.

More dynamics of crossing the various straits would reduce the need for an oversized navy which would've ended up choked up a bottleneck.

Also to make things a bit more interesting for the nautical minded players, how about a link between the Mediterranean and the Indian ocean? As in around Africa (or the other way around the world but that's pretty ridiculous lol), that would sharply increase the requirements of interactions between Turkey and SA & Iran.

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

Jan 21, 2020 19:08:29 GMT Tolbethessar said:

Iran would probably be the least affected. Iraq being predominantly a land power and has only one port probably wouldn't necessarily care about the Suez at all.

Turkey and SA would be the worst affected by the Suez.

But in full truthfulness, nearly every water space IS a stalemate line on this map except for the tri-space Mediterranean. From the Suez all the way to Barsa, the water spaces are essentially one super-long strait. It's the nature of how the environs of the theater are.

More dynamics of crossing the various straits would reduce the need for an oversized navy which would've ended up choked up a bottleneck.

Also to make things a bit more interesting for the nautical minded players, how about a link between the Mediterranean and the Indian ocean? As in around Africa (or the other way around the world but that's pretty ridiculous lol), that would sharply increase the requirements of interactions between Turkey and SA & Iran.

Something like off-board boxes, maybe? I think that could do it.

I've also thought of allowing Iraq to build in Kuwait (hello, Saddam), to make it slightly less of a land power in mid-to-end game.

[Tolbethessar]

Jan 21, 2020 19:50:05 GMT Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger said:

Jan 21, 2020 19:08:29 GMT Tolbethessar said:

Iran would probably be the least affected. Iraq being predominantly a land power and has only one port probably wouldn't necessarily care about the Suez at all.

Turkey and SA would be the worst affected by the Suez.

But in full truthfulness, nearly every water space IS a stalemate line on this map except for the tri-space Mediterranean. From the Suez all the way to Barsa, the water spaces are essentially one super-long strait. It's the nature of how the environs of the theater are.

More dynamics of crossing the various straits would reduce the need for an oversized navy which would've ended up choked up a bottleneck.

Also to make things a bit more interesting for the nautical minded players, how about a link between the Mediterranean and the Indian ocean? As in around Africa (or the other way around the world but that's pretty ridiculous lol), that would sharply increase the requirements of interactions between Turkey and SA & Iran.

Something like off-board boxes, maybe? I think that could do it.

I've also thought of allowing Iraq to build in Kuwait (hello, Saddam), to make it slightly less of a land power in mid-to-end game.

Yeah, or even an "on-board box" if you make a long L-shaped space bypassing Egypt & African spaces.

Either way, that's if you wanted one extra degree of separation between the western and eastern halves of the waterways. There's always the option of a direct connection to make things much more intimate.

And that's a good idea, making Kuwait even more important for Iraq and whoever wants to oppose him (hello, Desert Storm lol).

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

Jan 21, 2020 20:24:42 GMT Tolbethessar said:

Jan 21, 2020 19:50:05 GMT Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger said:

Something like off-board boxes, maybe? I think that could do it.

I've also thought of allowing Iraq to build in Kuwait (hello, Saddam), to make it slightly less of a land power in mid-to-end game.

Yeah, or even an "on-board box" if you make a long L-shaped space bypassing Egypt & African spaces.

Either way, that's if you wanted one extra degree of separation between the western and eastern halves of the waterways. There's always the option of a direct connection to make things much more intimate.

And that's a good idea, making Kuwait even more important for Iraq and whoever wants to oppose him (hello, Desert Storm lol).

The teensy Shatt-al-Arab water space in front of Basra is to the same end of making Kuwait necessary for Iraq, and thus strengthening his connection to the Gulf triangle.

I will add three new water spaces around the edge of the map (two around Africa, one for more maneuvering room around the Arabian Sea), reorient some sea provinces in the Red Sea and Gulf, and tweak a handful of land borders later today.

I've also thought about letting Egypt build in North Yemen, for historical accuracy, but that seems like it'll stoke too much tension with the Saudi for an EG-SA alliance to really work

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

Changes:

1) Added names! Most land provinces are now labeled with their name.
2) Added passage "around Africa" that made my accuracy-loving side cry. 
3) Reoriented sea spaces in the Red Sea and the Gulf to allow a little more motion.
4) Denoted Kuwait being an eligible build site for Iraq, and UAE & Lebanon being eligible build sites for all (they'll be of limited extra use to their likely initial owner, but a boon for cross-board powers.

New decision points:

1) North Yemen as a build site for Egypt. Y/N
2) Any other "Major Harbors"?
3) Initial unit placement. I'll get my thoughts up in a bit, but it's a complicated one.
4) Should I split the Red Sea into three spaces (Gulf of Suez, Gulf of Aqaba, and Red Sea)?

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

Ooh, thought!

This may be crazy, but would it make sense to give Iraq build rights over Aleppo, as Syria and Iraq both had Ba'athist(-ish) leadership at this time?

[Tolbethessar]

Idk... The sea spaces are drawn pretty awkwardly, so I wouldn't recommend splinter them further. What version are we on now anyway? It's getting harder and harder to keep up, so many changes lol.

The Atlantic passage doesn't have to be a space but simply a direct link Med-Ara, then you avoid having such an ugly space and you feel so much better on the inside.

As for Aleppo, doesn't seem to add anything for Iraq. There's already Kuwait, and ofc the UAE and Lebanon universal sites. As for Egypt, N.Yemen might or might not... I haven't even had the numbers pulled for you yet, so I can't tell you how that would be a good or bad effect.

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

Jan 21, 2020 23:13:09 GMT Tolbethessar said:

Idk... The sea spaces are drawn pretty awkwardly, so I wouldn't recommend splinter them further. What version are we on now anyway? It's getting harder and harder to keep up, so many changes lol.

The Atlantic passage doesn't have to be a space but simply a direct link Med-Ara, then you avoid having such an ugly space and you feel so much better on the inside.

As for Aleppo, doesn't seem to add anything for Iraq. There's already Kuwait, and ofc the UAE and Lebanon universal sites. As for Egypt, N.Yemen might or might not... I haven't even had the numbers pulled for you yet, so I can't tell you how that would be a good or bad effect.

In terms of realism, I figured a Med-Ara link would make no sense, since you'd be able to go around Africa much faster than through the canal, so the Atlantic passage was my preference. It's not the first choice of way between the seas, but the choice alternative (which I should consolidate into a single space to avoid stalemating there too)

[Tolbethessar]

Jan 21, 2020 23:20:12 GMT Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger said:

Jan 21, 2020 23:13:09 GMT Tolbethessar said:

Idk... The sea spaces are drawn pretty awkwardly, so I wouldn't recommend splinter them further. What version are we on now anyway? It's getting harder and harder to keep up, so many changes lol.

The Atlantic passage doesn't have to be a space but simply a direct link Med-Ara, then you avoid having such an ugly space and you feel so much better on the inside.

As for Aleppo, doesn't seem to add anything for Iraq. There's already Kuwait, and ofc the UAE and Lebanon universal sites. As for Egypt, N.Yemen might or might not... I haven't even had the numbers pulled for you yet, so I can't tell you how that would be a good or bad effect.

In terms of realism, I figured a Med-Ara link would make no sense, since you'd be able to go around Africa much faster than through the canal, so the Atlantic passage was my preference. It's not the first choice of way between the seas, but the choice alternative (which I should consolidate into a single space to avoid stalemating there too)

I would chalk it up to the "out of sight, out of mind" mentality that strategic planners of the middle eastern countries seems to employ. If they're not seeing it happen before their eyes, they literally have no clue what's happening in the outside world, thus everything comes to them as a surprise if it didnt originate from the region, apparently.

So it's theorically feasible to "sneak" a fleet around Africa and then shock the enemy from the other side, "Surprise to see me?" This clutching-at-the-pearls aspect can work the same way for players as it did for the nations they're playing as.

*I'm overexaggerating, but some of those nations really do behave almost like that way in the 70s.

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

Jan 22, 2020 0:02:13 GMT Tolbethessar said:

Jan 21, 2020 23:20:12 GMT Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger said:

In terms of realism, I figured a Med-Ara link would make no sense, since you'd be able to go around Africa much faster than through the canal, so the Atlantic passage was my preference. It's not the first choice of way between the seas, but the choice alternative (which I should consolidate into a single space to avoid stalemating there too)

I would chalk it up to the "out of sight, out of mind" mentality that strategic planners of the middle eastern countries seems to employ. If they're not seeing it happen before their eyes, they literally have no clue what's happening in the outside world, thus everything comes to them as a surprise if it didnt originate from the region, apparently.

So it's theorically feasible to "sneak" a fleet around Africa and then shock the enemy from the other side, "Surprise to see me?" This clutching-at-the-pearls aspect can work the same way for players as it did for the nations they're playing as.

*I'm overexaggerating, but some of those nations really do behave almost like that way in the 70s.

I think I'll merge the two spaces of the L into one, and then make that one adjacent to Greece as well as the Med on the other end.

And I will go ahead with changing the division of the Red Sea, for aesthetics as well as to avoid ridiculousness.

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

This what I'd consider a working variant, so I'm going to stop changing the province configs for a bit.


Without names:



1: Bsr - Basra
2: Kuw - Kuwait
3: SAA - Shaat-al-Arab
4: Qtr - Qatar
5: Aqb - Gulf of Aqaba
6: GoS - Gulf of Suez
7: Sue - Suez
8: Hfa - Haifa
9: Lbn - Lebanon
10: Cyp - Cyprus

Rules notes:

1) Suez has one coast, which borders Gulf of Suez, Cairo, Alexandria, the Mediterranean Sea, Levantine Sea, Tel Aviv, and Sharm-el-Sheikh.
2) Ist is a continuous space, bordering Izmir, Ankara, the Aegean Sea, and Greece. The Marmara is shown solely for aesthetic reasons.
3) The Caspian Sea is impassable, as is Africa. The Cape passage does not border Libya, Sudan, or Ethiopia.
4) Any power that controls UAE or Lebanon as of an adjustment phase may build there. Iraq may build in Kuwait if it controls it at an adjustment phase, and Egypt may do likewise in North Yemen.
5) Qatar and UAE are adjacent, likewise for South Yemen and Ethiopia.
6) Dammam has two coasts - east and west. The west coast borders the West Persian Gulf, Qatar, and the Gulf Coast; the east coast borders Qatar, the UAE, and the Persian Gulf (I'm open for better names for those).
7) The island of Crete is a part of Greece. Consequently, Greece borders the Cape passage, Mediterranean Sea, Cilician Sea, Aegean Sea, and Istanbul.
8) The Cape Passage works as a standard sea space. It borders the Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea, Strait of Aden, Mediterranean Sea, Aegean Sea, and Greece. It represents the way around the Cape of Good Hope, and is not at all drawn to scale.

---

A topic still nowhere near settled in my mind, unit placements. Here's what I got.

Egypt:

F Alx
A Cai
F Asw

Iran:
A Teh
F Ban
F Shz

Iraq:
F Bsr
A Bag
A Msl

Israel:
A SES
F Tlv
A Hfa

Saudi Arabia:
F Dmm (ec)
A Ryh
A Jed

Turkey:
A Ank
F Ist
F Izm

I'm honestly uncertain about giving Iran a Fleet in Shiraz (is it really useful?), Egypt in Aswan (does it incline Egypt too much against SA?), and whether Turkey should have two fleets (sea spaces are key to its early expansion, but another army could help it avoid getting bottled up in Asia Minor).

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

I present the adjacency map:



Diamonds are non-SC land spaces, circles are water spaces, hexagons are SCs. Sky-blue is sea, teal is coastal, green is landlocked.