Crete Naval. MV in 15 turns.
Units lost: One infantry (core), one paratroop (aux), two destroyers.
Having played this scenario immediately after the airborne version, I decided to place the bulk of my invasion force on the western side of the map, to avoid the British navy. While I did avoid the British, I realized (too late) that I'd crammed way to many transports in the Suda Bay area, and as a result it wasn't until turn 6 that I had all my forces unloaded. This led to a huge back-up that found the majority of my force bottlenecked around Georgioupoli (11,14). After blasting my way through, I made a mad dash across the island over to Heraklion. Alas, I had wasted too much time on the eastern end, and the game ended with my forces still trying to take out the last British defenders in Heraklion itself.
My thoughts on this scenario... well, the AI did a much better job on defense here; only three times did it send units out of city hexes to launch fruitless attacks against my units. Otherwise it seemed to do a far better job of balancing its defensive requirements, particularly in regards to AA and artillery use. On the other hand, the Royal Navy seemed a lot less aggressive in this scenario... the main British ships stayed near Heraklion literally until the last few turns, when at last it moved out to bombard my forces. Even the British DDs seemed to be less aggressive here. It would seem the RN would be a bit more on the offensive here, since the idea behind the scenario is that you're moving the bulk of your forces via transport. (And maybe it was just me, but that d**n Mosquito was practically indestructable in this scenario -- it held out at 1 strength point until the last turn!)
Looking back on both Crete scenarios, here's my main thought: the naval scenario seems to be the more demanding of the two, since less of your force starts on the island. However, the airborne version should be a bit more difficult, since you're dropping forces onto the island from the start. I think the two scenarios should be switched in regards to the situation on the island itself. In the airborne version, have fewer core units on the island, and the auxiliary paras in need of taking the airfields at the start of the game. This would better reflect the fact that the invasion is in its early stages. In the naval version, the player gets the paras in possession of the airfields, but needs to get more troops ashore to support the initial gains. This way the airborne game would be for the more daring player, while the naval version would be seen as a not-as-difficult choice.
Please realize I do like this scenario. In fact it's a great strategic puzzle to ponder. While it is definitely a work in progress, it shows great potential and should be a lot of fun. Oh, and might I add, the naval scenario had me thinking ahead to when PzC visits the Pacific... imagine storming the beaches at Iwo, Okinawa, etc. As an old Pacific General fan I'm looking forward to that day!
Tomorrow I'll resume my regular campaign at Minsk.