Some concerns about amphibious transports

[Strategiclayabout]

Hi ,

- I saw a lot of discussion about axis capitals vulnerability against sea assaults in the ladder thread. However I think it can be equally bad for Allies as there are some things that don't make much sense with amphibious assaults.

- Concerning island hopping maybe the best thing to do is just to reduce amphibious transports range at least by half and problem solved . Because having Japan invading USA or Australia in the summer of 41 without any nearby logistical base is fun but well, you know :eek: ...

*

- The main thing that bothers me is the lack of consequences when amphibious transports just sit next to a neutral minor port/capital for 1 or several turns just waiting the good time to land.

- I know there is an event to pop australian units when jap naval units comes near Australia proper. But jap amphibious transport can be spotted in attack range of Port Moresby with no reaction at all by Allies.

- I don't think USA would be happy to see jap units in the Coral Sea before Pear Harbor and Australians should be a bit worried by the move to say the least.

- Same thing with amphibs leisurely parading in front of DEI's capital though here it can be ok if you consider DEI early jap leaning. You can say Dutchmen just prefer to look the other way .

So what are other players opinion(s) on that ?

[AshesFall]

I have a lot of opinions on amphibs .

Their ability to land and unload troops in bad weather, their range, the movement of troops afterwards, etc etc.

I've got two thoughts to limit them; No amphibious landing below a certain supply on the unit. This could go down with tech, making investments in that tech more interesting.

Also, a unit has 0 action points after landing. This has several interesting effects;

Suddenly, a player has to support an opposed landing somehow. The troops will be vulnerable sitting on the coastal tile, so airpower, supporting para drops or things like that will be necessary to blunt the counter attack. This also makes landing in bad weather impractical, as you wont be able to use those aircraft to help...

[Strategiclayabout]

Good point too Ash ,

- It could be interesting to limit amphibious landings to clear terrain tiles and coastal towns/cities if possible while allowing them only from clear seas tiles.

- I think amphib and paras have 1 AP after landing: they can attack or move one tile not both. I find that mechanism quite good: no exploitation unless there is no enemy.

[AshesFall]

Good point too Ash ,

- I think amphib and paras have 1 AP after landing: they can attack or move one tile not both. I find that mechanism quite good: no exploitation unless there is no enemy.

That is a good point in one way, however;

The forces attacking the shore is represented by the amphib transport units own attack, and the subsequent "landing casualties" representing fighting with shore garrisons that are too small to represent in the game. Why allow an additional attack beyond this, or movement of one additional tile? This precise mechanic allows for a lot of opportunity for silliness and exploitation.

This is especially a problem because of the scale of the map and the actual units available for production. There is absolutely no way to garrison the beaches to prevent a landing, there are always large gaps to land an army group or two in. Doing so took the allies nearly a month during operation overlord.

I think the 0 action point thing is a great representation of their vulnerability right after landing, the sort of vulnerability Rommel wanted to exploit in France. It also has all the neat side effects I wrote about

Eh, I'm sure there are better solutions, and I do like your suggestion of limiting where you can land with amphibs.

[Strategiclayabout]

- Yeah the thing I had in mind was Anzio vs Salerne more than Overlord: Allies could have advanced to Rome nearly unopposed early but were too cautious and the whole thing turned into a giant trap once Kesselring understood what was going on .

- Another option would be to increase casualties for landing outside clear tiles instead of eliminating them. That would push players to avoid risky tiles unless they're ready to take great risks.

[Battlefield]

I think the 0 action point thing is a great representation of their vulnerability right after landing, the sort of vulnerability Rommel wanted to exploit in France. It also has all the neat side effects I wrote about...

Well, in other threads has already been speculation about whether a ship unit should reach almost every destination of a map within a specified 14-day turn. A regular reduction in landing distance of a unit to zero is likely to be difficult to convey in this context. Feels somehow not correctly when the target field of a landing operation is unguarded and empty.

But yes, you're absolutely right, in a limited number of troops you are not able to guard every stretch of beach. Unfortunately, not even the strategically important. But instead of diminishing the possibilities of a landing, we could indeed give the defender a realistic defensive option at hand. An extension of the pioneering work would be possible. In addition to a bonus tile for their own units (Fortified position) the pioneers could, for example, still build a weakening position for the opponent. Upon entering such a field (we call it "coastal defense") could then reduce the movement of a landing unit (as desired) to zero, preventing a digging in of the opponent or even reduce their defense values. The "coastal defense" is accordingly not destroyed by entering, but only by controlling the inland adjacent map-tiles. Such a position might be easier to defend, even with few or weaker units. At the very least an enemy landing operation could be considerably delayed at selected positions...

[steel32]

Not sure I agree with all talk. Feel the game is mostly in balance beyond carriers only myself. Yes transports could go all the way in as the Hornet did to Japan (albeit a distance away) and the Japanese did to Pearl Harbor. If your opponent has the guts to go all the way in so be it, plan for it or improvise. That is the chances of the game and why we play the game hoping it can be different every time. It is initiative and chances taken and succeeding in this game and keeping it. Besides there are generally reactions to invasions of US/Australia/Japan/England where there should be due to national pride. Italy is a different story in WW2.

Japanese really should have a chance to take their objectives and what is talked about above would really limit them to not do per the real war or have a chance to actually help the axis when the war. Should they not have a chance, albeit perhaps a limited chance. Do not really want to play a game where you start and it is called, Allies win!

If your opponent reacts to you more than they to you, you are already have a good chance to win. What does it matter if a transport goes all the way in, you get a response.

In this game the differences game be in my mind depending on the play due to Soviet lower strength, and carrier over powered.

[steel32]

Sorry, overall though see a pretty even game that reflects reality for the most part. Looking for improvement yet if justified. Thanks Hubert and team for a great game! Best yet!

[Strategiclayabout]

- No problem steel32 the point was to discuss things and hear other opinions .

Actually what I said was the amphibious extra long ranges can be equally bad for Axis and Allies so it's balanced but perhaps excessive.

- My main concern is the ability to just park amphibious next to targets for 1 or several turns with no reaction. They should have to come from several tiles away without being spotted for a "surprise" assault but well only my opinion .

[steel32]

I agree with your thinking there strategiclayabout. Normally I do not do for more realistic gameplay but occasionally do some scouting. A good trick is to bring in reinforced long distance carrier to within a few tiles of the location which you do not even need to be parked. Usually 1 carrier of mine for Japan is sent in the sea between Rabaul, Port Moresby, and the solomons. So getting rid of the next to tile assault would only be partially a fix.

[Bill101]

Hi Strategiclayabout

I just want to clarify exactly what you mean by this:

- My main concern is the ability to just park amphibious next to targets for 1 or several turns with no reaction.

Only if you were playing against me, then you'd probably have your amphibs sunk pretty quickly.

Or are you referring to them being parked next to neutral countries so their presence isn't being reported to your opponent?

Thanks

Bill

[Strategiclayabout]

Hi Bill ,

- Yes there is the neutral country part of it. Though you can consider small Pacific countries are too afraid of the mighty Rising Sun to even protest. That said an amphibious assault force or small combat fleet parking next to a major port in a minor territorial waters is quite close to an act of war .

- But other than minors Japs can do a lot of close scouting without consequences near/adjacent to allied ports as UK won't attack/DoW on them early because of the diplomatic price.

- In my mind they should have to use planes/carriers to recon instead of just putting ships/amphib adjacent. Actually Japs can also do that before sending italian or german raiders in to avoid ambushes .

[Bill101]

Thanks for the explanation as it will help our thoughts for the future.