SoE Rebooted - Axis (Ash vs Will)

[AshesFall]

The idea is that the weakened HQs are in a state of disarray, so they aren't working very well at what they should be doing: coordinating supply and leading their forces.

Thus by reducing their supply distributing value, there is a really strong incentive to reinforce any damaged HQs as soon as possible.

This makes them even more valuable in some situations where previously pockets of troops cut off in an advance had the potential to survive virtually indefinitely unless the HQ was destroyed, because as long as the HQ existed with them they could always reinforce back up to full strength.

Now, coupled with the new supply rules, cut off units are much more vulnerable, which is how it should be.

Thanks . Good to know the thoughts behind the system!

[AshesFall]

I'm so screwed, I'm so screwed...

Allright, now that the obvious is out of the way, I thought a quick update as a "set up" for the longer update to come whenever I think it seems appropriate in the game might be in order.

The WAllies landed in Sicily this turn, no idea why they did that, but I'll take it! Hopefully it means that the conquest of italy will take a good bit longer so that I can buy and build some meagre reinforcements. Especially since this;

Yeah... lovely sight to see first thing in a turn. Considering that I had 30 or so land units built as the US and present in spain mid 43 in our game (with super tech) it may very well be that there are some 20+ americans just about to hit france. What do I have to counter?

Yeah... after frantic operating and wasting most of this turns income, this. Impressive? Not particularly. Hopefully I can hit them before they get good supply and too many units ashore, if not... well. If not, hitler can shove his "not one step back" directive. Silly dictator... This may seem like a slight overreaction, but the truth is that if the Americans get ashore in france in force before the really bad weather hits it really is game over.

Edit: It also occurred to me (just now in fact, way after the turn was sent) that this might be some Western allied Maskirovka. I have no idea how long that transport has been sitting there, he might just have left a transport or two in the english channel hoping to make me waste a lot moving things to france to counter. Gah... this game, the tension is giving me cardiac problems . I wish I had a heavy bomber to scout with, unfortunately it died in italy when he landed in Sicily (might be why he went for it?). Anyway, I'm fairly content with my moves anyway, as it's a pretty "do or die" situation. I have to defend, if it's a feint, so be it. :S

So then, the stage for the end of 1943 seems to be set; Allies in Sicily, allies in the English channel looking to cross and possibly soon in France. USSR hitting me hard in the south of USSR where I am paper thin, and the germans on the retreat with severely inferior forces everywhere. The question is where the Axis will crumble first. Italy is given, but will we fall in the east... or the west?

[Strategiclayabout]

- Hehe that's the thrill of the game with intel sometimes revealing something that wreak havoc in your plans. Having to guess what's the enemy is doing, trying to surprise him . Time will tell if your french gamble was an inspired move or just a MPPs waste .

- About amphibious transports they can stay at sea a very long time but the thing is each turn they will lose supply. When in low supply they will begin to lose movement so at some point they become nearly useless and you have to land them somewhere.

- Also, they are vulnerable, the longer they're at sea, the more they have chances to be destroyed or take damage by enemy units (even just because of bad weather/rough seas).

[AshesFall]

- Hehe that's the thrill of the game with intel sometimes revealing something that wreak havoc in your plans. Having to guess what's the enemy is doing, trying to surprise him . Time will tell if your french gamble was an inspired move or just a MPPs waste .

- About amphibious transports they can stay at sea a very long time but the thing is each turn they will lose supply. When in low supply they will begin to lose movement so at some point they become nearly useless and you have to land them somewhere.

- Also, they are vulnerable, the longer they're at sea, the more they have chances to be destroyed or take damage by enemy units (even just because of bad weather/rough seas).

Yeah... during the current turn it was demonstrated to me that ambhibious landings can be made in bad weather.

That really bugs the hell out of me, seeing as it was pretty much impossible to pull off an ambhib landing in any sort of force in bad weather, which is why they called off D-Day once and almost again on the actual date. As it is, I spent around 600 Mpp in operating costs to have the luftwaffe grounded for the invasion, and bad weather penalties making counterattack with all my shiny elite 13 armor useless. The lynchpin plan of the defense was to hit his HQ with tac's as soon as he landed, and then fight him off in bad supply. That wont happen now, and if the bad weather continues he can basically sit there and build supply and more troops until he's good and ready.

The natural consequence seems to be that you always want to do the invasion in as bad weather as possible, preferably around the winter months when you know there is going to be lots of rounds where the enemy cant counter attack you effectively or use his airforce. No need to ensure air superiority. Blech.

I made a good long analysis of the defense of france sometime during 42, I still missed building engineers because I got distracted, but my final conclusion was that coastal defense is impossible. Too many towns and too much ground to cover, the enemy can always choose where to put down a heavy blow, and -will- take one or two towns at will with minimal losses. At best, you can try to fortify some of the major cities to limit supply potential, but the bottom line is that the enemy will get ashore in force, and have a HQ or two directly on coastal towns for supply. The only viable option then seems to be the counterattack (vis a vis rommel style D-Day response) but with landings possible in bad weather... Hm.

[Strategiclayabout]

- I think landings/amphib don't work in winter/snow/frozen weather but it's true penalties could be harsher for transports in rough seas. "Overlording" in bad weather only works if there is little to no coastal defense (what happened in your game). The other problem, as always are operating costs, I hope next patch will tone them down a bit .

- Otherwise, you need at least 10 corps and one HQ to defend France, your top priority being guarding towns/cities with/adjacent to ports (Rotterdam/Antwerp/Calais/Cherbourg) with some GAR units in rear cities against paradrops.

- You're right when you say Allies can probably take any tile they want in the end but if they only get one port or city with the first wave because of your defense, their situation will be precarious for some time and their HQ not landed or left exposed ^^ .

- If your units are entrenched, Allies will have to use air power to land in a good spot and if you have AA tech and some aerial cover they will have to send tanks/SF and waste them against town/city defensive bonuses. US tanks were already at level 5 in your game, negating your elite panzer advantage

- Then if you had time to build some fortifications near those objectives your own tanks can attack weakened enemies while being entrenched. Without clear skies to paradrop and let air power reduce fortifications, Allies will have a very hard time since bad weather combat penalties will also apply to them.

- As always, even if you don't have enough units, you can still try to lure Allies where your reserves are by leaving an opening in the Atlantik Wall.

- Another thing about fortifications is you have to decide where to build them:

1) on the coast (to prevent any landing but you'll be vulnerable to naval fire)

2) behind the beaches (no enemy naval fire and an open field of fire for your units)

3) far in the rear on the best defensive terrain (Antwerp-Amiens line)

- Another possibility starting 1943 is to keep some fighters around to spot enemy ampbibious transports and soften them with tac bombers.

I know I know, that's a lot of "ifs" so just win in USSR dammit !

[Bill101]

It's an interesting question you raise Ashes Fall about amphibious landings, and although I can see that a landing in bad weather would have risked deaths, injuries and chaos in the landing craft, I wonder how much of a factor that was compared to the loss of airpower that the bad weather entailed? Essentially, that works both ways and for the Allies, attacking without having air support could be more of a problem?

This subject is certainly worthy of discussion, and going through the records of amphibious landings in both wars to see just how much the weather played a role.

[AshesFall]

Hey Bill, thanks for taking note

I took the liberty of digging a little online for sources on the matter. It seems that larger scale ambphibious invasions have largely fallen out of style and are not advised in any form in the modern military, but here are some WWII related sources;

http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i9/p35_s1?bypassSSO=1 ("The normandy beaches")

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/invsicily.htm

"examination also pointed out that a southerly wind of any appreciable force, strengthened in the afternoon by the sea breeze, would produce dangerous landing conditions and an untenable anchorage for the force offshore."

"During this critical period while the invasion force was completely exposed to the NW wind, considerable apprehension was felt in various quarters concerning the success of the operation."

""The strategic and tactical importance of weather forecasts cannot be overemphasized.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings#Weather

"conditions were clearly unsuitable for a landing; wind and high seas would make it impossible to launch landing craft from larger ships at sea, and low clouds would prevent aircraft finding their targets. The Allied troop convoys already at sea were forced to take shelter in bays and inlets on the south coast of Britain for the night."

Basically it seems to boil down to this; Both the tide and the weather is extremely important. In part this is due to the need for aircraft to cover the extremely exposed "landing phase" of the invasion, but mainly it has to do with the actual logistics of the operation. Storms and bad weather seems to make it impossible to disembark the landing craft from the larger ships. The invasion itself isnt a continous stream of ships seamlessly floating ashore but one of fits and starts. One "line" is driven ashore while a large mass off ambhib vessels wait in the waters offshore for their turn to disembark. In bad weather, this mass of vessels would be devestated, both en route to the offshore assembly area and the risk of being lost, driven away from the group, capzised, thrown overboard or hit by other vessels with the same result, and once assembled. The closest comparison would be to try to jam 30 small boats together in a large swimming pool and not have half of them go under with men drowning and being hit by other boats when the wave machine is on. This is not to mention that the men actually getting ashore would be seasick and suffering from everything from basic exhaustion to hypothermia and basically useless in the face of any defenders.

Add to this the extreme difficulties of getting any heavier equipment or supply ashore in such conditions, given that the turns in SC represent two weeks to a month.

While it might in theory be possible to do (I havent found any sources describing landings in bad weather unfortunately), in reality no commander would ever risk loosing very large amounts of their forces and being crushed in detail by any defenders due to absolute deterioration of combat capabilities once ashore.

A good starting point for a discussion?

Edit;

Two suggestions for in game models/solutions;

1. Simply making it impossible to ambhibiously disembark from a tile with rough seas or into a tile with rough weather.

2. Creating very large penalties for any such landing, heavily increased landing losses (as much as 5-6 steps losses per unit given that the basic losses also represent defending shore elements too small to be represented as units in the game) and severe morale/readiness penalties once ashore. Basically to the point where any sort of counter attack in the two turns or so following the landing would mean the destruction of the landing forces.