Amphibious Landing Unit (or, From the Shores of Immer Etwas!)

[JerseyJohn]

This forum is an offshoot of the Amphibious Operations in SC 2 Forum started earlier.

After much discussion of ideas offered by several players (Minotaur, Rambo, Shaka, Liam, Piumarcobaleno, Immer Etwas, KDG and myself) it seemed we had more than enough input to for a new specialized unit making Naval Landings more palatable.

The following ideas are based very heavily upon the suggestions of Immer Etwas .

AMPHIBIOUS LANDING UNIT

· Infantry Army or Corps must start out adjacent to a controlled port.

· Player selects Amphibious Operation [from list with Operate & Trans].

· Infantry Unit is carried by newly formed Amphibious Landing Unit. at an MPP cost four times greater than Transport for the same unit.

· Amphibious Landing Unit moves adjacent to targeted enemy controlled hex. If this is accomplished during the same game turn attack proceeds. If not, carried unit remains moving at sea.

· If attack proceeds and target hex is unoccupied carried unit moves ashore even if it embarked earlier that turn (assaulting units can embark and disembark during same turn). . If landed unit embarked earlier the same game turn it cannot move. If landed unit did not embark earlier the same game turn it may move one hex or engage in combat in the normal manner against an adjacent enemy unit.

· The Amphibious Landing Unit remains in it’s sea hex and becomes a temporary harbor. It can no longer move and is removed after two full turns.

· Temporary Harbors act as a10 MPP supply source.

· If Attack proceeds and target hex is occupied by defending unit, phasing player mad first attack defending unit with all eligible air units. After air attacks phasing player may engage in amphibious assault. During Amphibious Assault the defending unit is attacked first by the Amphibious unit at it’s full strength. If defender is destroyed the Infantry unit proceeds ashore. If defender is not destroyed the infantry unit attacks at it’s full strength. If Defender is destroyed the Infantry unit lands and ceases all movement. The Amphibious Landing Unit becomes a Temporary Harbor.

· Temporary Harbor’s may receive transported units and allow them to unload in the same manner as regular harbors.

· Temporary Harbors can only exist a maximum of three turns. The Assaulting turn and the next two turns after landing.

· Failed Amphibious Operations result in the dissolution of the Amphibious Unit. The Carried Infantry Unit reverts to an normal Transported unit unable to land on enemy controlled coastal hexes.

While at sea, Amphibious units defend as though they were battle ships but have no attack factor against other naval units.

Amphibious Operations becomes a technology added to the regular research list.

Contributing factors to an operation's success or failure should include time of year and terrain of target hex.

Looking forward to some terrific feedback -- comparable to what was posted in the original Amphibious Forum. And, of course, that includes well thought out dissenting opinions.

[ March 04, 2003, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[pzgndr]

Good topic, and well thought out. A few alternative thoughts, just to provoke debate:

Temporary harbors. These were not something every landing unit could become. A new unit type is an option, but letting fleets adjacent to a coastal hex serve double-duty may work here. Allow fleets to move and then have a menu option to convert to a port, subject to attack as a fleet, and to convert back to a fleet when it's done. Additionally, fleets as temporary harbors could then permit seaborne evacuations (Dunkirk-style), which is something else to work into the game. As for being supply sources, this is something HQs already provide and we should continue to encourage this. Should HQs at sea continue to provide their command rating and combat morale bonus to landing units?

Amphibious assault. I'd prefer to see the Corps or Army landing unit represent a combined capability for a single attack, followed by either an unloading into a vacant hex or dissolution. And defend as though they were battleships? Come on.

Research. I disagree. Landing craft construction is not rocket science. It's not like you can get 6 different levels L0-L5. I could see just giving the US and British some enhanced capability, like a combat bonus for the amphibious assaults.

Seasonal and terrain effects. Yes. Amphibious assaults during storm turns should be prohibited. Beach hexes would be nice to see, not to restrict landings there only, but to represent reduced chance for landing losses. Non-beach hexes would have a higher chance for losses, and landings on mountain hexes should be prohibited.

[xwormwood]

Bill Macon: Why should the US and British get some enhanced capability, like a combat bonus for the amphibious assaults? Is see no reason. Should the germans get a bonus for building fortifications, just because the US and the Brits didn't build them because only the 3rd Reich had to defend a "Festung Europa"? In my eyes there should be no bonus (and no LC research levels as well). And why not bring back the good old Mulberry-System from Clash of Steel? Pay for it, get it, plant it and finaly look with tears in your eyes while it get hammered by your enemy. Or something like that.

[JerseyJohn]

Bill

Glad you like the concept -- it was you and Immer who started the ball rolling a while back.

At the time I didn't think it was very important but I was completely wrong.

My reasoning for allowing it to have the defensive capability of a Battleship is the understanding that naval units represent more than one ship. Presumably an amphibious armarda would be comprised of numerous warships, many of them obsolete but mounting large naval guns for shore bombardment. So, as a quick guess I felt a BB would best describe the unit's defensive ability.

Absolutly agreed on the supply item. Different beacheads would vary in their ability to provide supplies for a landing. The key factor would be their own proximity to a major supply source. I felt, however, that a single unit establishing itself would fall easy victim to a counterattack if not well supplied and for two and a half turns the temporary harbor would be a cornucopia. If a better alternative, such as the gathering fleet or floating HQ is found then I'm completly in favor of it. I'm trying to get land units out of the water as quickly as possible because they are so easily decimated by enemy air and naval attack.

In this sense the Temporary Harbor term isn't meant in the sense that Normandy had one, it's intended to denote numerous transports and supply ships temporarily anchored at the invasion point, facilitating supply and offloading for reinforcements. Without this provision additional units would be stuck sitting offshore during the crucial first turn.

In reality such a massive buildup (possibly three or four armies!) should not be possible in so short a time and I'm not crazy about the idea. But if the issue isn't treated in SC scale, where numerous armies, tank groups and airfleets might well be awaiting the event, an invasion might never get off the ground, or, more accurately, off the beach and onto the ground.

Agreed about landing terrain except in this scale it causes problems. At fifty miles across, how many coastal hexes have mountains up against the shoreline? Certainly most of Norway, but what about Italy or Greece? Suppose a mountain hex actually represents a perfectly flat beach with ideal surf, ten miles of open terrain, and forty miles of mountains further inland -- ? So, untill a more accurate determination can be made I wanted to leave that issue a bit vague.

I think research ought to be a factor. At first it also seemed to me that there wasn't that much involved, but upon further examination it didn't seem as simple.

-- There's the organizational skill of getting the proper units to the proper beaches. Even after dozens of Pacific landings, Operation Torch, Sicily, Salerno and Anzio -- the American planners still screwed much of this up in the Normandy operation!

-- There's coordination of naval and air bombardment. Literally hit and miss, not intending that horrible pun.

-- The development of bombardment weapons such as multiple rocket launches mounted upon small vessels adapted to move in for close support.

-- Sophistication of fire control from BBs and CAs offshore after the troops have landed and are attempting to make their way inland, etc..

-- Evolution of amphibious ducks, Higgins Boats, LSTs and LSIs.

-- Beachmaster skills, training of specialized units such as British Commandos, US Army Rangers, and whatever their Axis counterparts would have been called. Additionally, there's specially trained engineers to come ashore with the first wave for obstacle removal.

And much more. I don't think these are simple tasks easily carried out by forces on the first attempt. The British paid for their experience at Dieppe, the Americans in a hundred other places, mainly against the Japanese. Non-combat casualties were being incurred right up till May 1944 in realistic training exercises.

To me, successfully incorporating all those skills and procedures would be L-5 invasion skill, as opposed to Germany's inexperienced attempt at converting canal barges to gated boats, attaching large airplane engines and hoping for the best in the Autumn English Channel, where most of them would probably have been swamped and gone under before reaching the opposite shore. To me that would be L-0! And the German professionals recognized it as such, yessing Hitler to death while making sure those deathtrap barges remained in France.

link to relevant Amphibious Operations Research Field Forum.

If the same function can be accomplished in a different, simpler manner, I'm all for it. No doubt there are different and possibly better methods of accomplishing the same task.

Xwormwood

I hope the above explanation answers the question. Your entry was posted before I finished writing it. Bill wasn't talking about a landing enhancement, he was talking about an experience enhancement. Even before the war the U. S., Japan and Britain would have been the only three major powers with amphibious landing experience. Germany's Norway landings are not in the same category for reasons I've listed in the Denmark-Norway Option Forum. UHL provided below.

click here for link to the relevant Denmark-Norway Option Forum.

click here for the related Amphibious Operations Forum.

The topic of Festung Europa is an extremely important, interesting and highly debatable one. If you're knowledgable on the subject it would be great if you'd start it as a Forum. It's badly in need of examination.

[ March 04, 2003, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[xwormwood]

JerseyJohn

"Even before the war the U. S., Japan and Britain would have been the only three major powers with amphibious landing experience." Japan maybe (to be honest: i just don't know), but are you sure that in 1939 the US or the Brits were able to do a mayor landing like Morocco 1943 / Normandy 1944? As far as i know the US were in 1939 not at all prepared for war, and even in 1942 they hadn't installed a simple coastal convoy system. They learned bloody lessons and developed solutions for open questions. A large scale landing was finaly made in 1944, nearly three years after the US entered the war. In my opinion Germany would have been able to do a large scale Sealion-landing in 1943 as well(of course only without Barbarossa in 1941 and no declaration of war against the US). You only need time.

All you've learned before the war is mostly useless when the reality of the war has reached you.

Example: Maginot/Fort Eben Emael: Useless; the french ("best army in europe") army: no match for the newly trained and equiped Wehrmacht; Battleships: easy prey for airplanes. Infantry-Tanks a la Word War I: obsolete.

So i wouldn't give too much account for the British or American pre-war landing abillities. Couldn't have been much more like the landing abillities of the Kriegsmarine in 1939 (tactics, not equipment). Maybe an invasion on a smal island or a landing in a friendly harbor or some kind of Norway-style invasions...

In my little eyes not enough for a special experience-bonus. At least not in 1939.

I like your entrys and links (or better: all the work you do here) very much, but i am just a tiny bit to lazy to work out some kind of Fortress Europe topic, so i beg you pardon.

[JerseyJohn]

Xwormwood

We are of one and the same mind 100% on this topic. There's no doubt that Germany could very well have conducted a credible, large scale Sea Lion in 1943. They weren't inept, merely inexperienced and unprepared for such an undertaking in 1940, when they had the greatest opportunity. They later gained some experience at Crete and in the Crimea/Caucasus operations, though nothing to compare with the massive and much more frequent Pacific and Mediteranean American landings.

The early American Pacific Landings had many problems -- Guadalcanal was a fiasco with the fleet actually running for it's life and leaving the landing force stranded! But prior to the war the United States had a history of amphibious landings in Latin America and Mexico. One Marine colonel, upon retiring in the 1920s, said truthfully that he'd fought more battles than Hannibal, Ceasar, Napoleon and Alexander the Great combined -- and he'd fought them for Standard Oil, American Fruit and the United Copper Company of America.

The British, likewise, had experience from events such as Gallipoli and operations in their various world wide colonies.

The Japanese, of course, had been practicing those techniques since emerging as a modern nation. Early 1942 demonstrated exactly how adept they were at the craft.

Sorry to hear you don't want to start a Fortress Europe Forum. I'm pretty lazy myself but Forum creation becomes a self-perpetuating process. Not creating one is always a good decision. --Always enjoy reading your contributions and analyzing your viewpoints.

[ March 04, 2003, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Minotaur]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

My reasoning for allowing it to have the defensive capability of a Battleship is the understanding that naval units represent more than one ship. Presumably an amphibious armarda would be comprised of numerous warships, many of them obsolete but mounting large naval guns for shore bombardment. So, as a quick guess I felt a BB would best describe the unit's defensive ability.

Of course landing barges are not alone in an amphibious assault, but they are also the weak point... Not able to defend themselves and having the possibility of bringing chaos to the order (damaged, slowed ships not able to follow others, panicked crew that quit formation, etc...)...

I think they should be weaker, Transport-like, forcing you to use your real BB, Air Fleets, etc... to protect them...

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Absolutly agreed on the supply item ...

In this sense the Temporary Harbor term isn't meant in the sense that Normandy had one, it's intended to denote numerous transports and supply ships temporarily anchored at the invasion point, facilitating supply and offloading for reinforcements.

Are 'Temporary Harbor' a separate unit (that can be attacked by enemy) or a Port-like thing that your ships can move over and protect?...

I prefer the second option, even if it's more difficult to do...

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

In reality such a massive buildup (possibly three or four armies!) should not be possible in so short a time and I'm not crazy about the idea.

That's why I didn't post an idea I have: Paratroopers... And also why I don't like too much the 'Marine' idea... The scale we're talking about is just too great... Never heard of a country having 40,000 to 60,000 (Corps sized...)Paratroopers or Marines... We should keep in mind (sometime it's tuff, I know ) that we're talking about Armies and Tank Groups...

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Agreed about landing terrain except in this scale it causes problems. At fifty miles across, how many coastal hexes have mountains up against the shoreline? ... So, untill a more accurate determination can be made I wanted to leave that issue a bit vague.

I think specific hexes marked by a beach-line (Like in Third Reich) should do the trick... But only after these issues are solved:

- Unlimited Manpool (so you cannot plug every beach you have with Corps)

After that, it's a question of 'clearing the beach' with Battleships, Carriers and Air Fleet if a unit did plug your chosen beach landing...

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

I think research ought to be a factor. At first it also seemed to me that there wasn't that much involved, but upon further examination it didn't seem as simple.

All your point are well explained and indeed may be improved... The question is: Can this be learn through research or only with live experience... Historically speaking...

And what the technology should improve?

- Longer supplies: Temporary Harbor last longer...

- Better supply: Starting at supply 5 up to 10 at full research...

- Lower initial MPPs cost...

- Better defense against attack (before and after landing)...

- Less landing casualties on a clear, non-defended beach...

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

The topic of Festung Europa is an extremely important, interesting and highly debatable one. If you're knowledgable on the subject it would be great if you'd start it as a Forum. It's badly in need of examination.

Indeed it is... I suggested Anti-Air Defense should be purchased and not researched, so you can focus on critical areas... You should be able to buy ground defenses:

- Ground Defense = Creating/repairing Fortifications... To increase entranchment of units in a hex...

- Ground Offense = Huge fixed Howitzer, etc... To help defend against an attack in a hex...

If the hex as no units in it, then the enemy unit is damaged before entering it...

If the hex as a unit in it, it boost that unit offense/defense statistics...

[Liam]

Well, amphibious units in real life prepared to make a landing do it all in one turn. They don't sit at sea long. What's the longest you could keep a dozen men on one of those craft before they jumped out from insanity? I doubt a week!

That should be taken into consideration here. Also the US had massive naval capabilities. While Germany and Russia did not. Britian and France were comparable but not quite. Italy was from what I know mostly an offensive, though perhaps with some limited transporting abilities. In order to have carried out say for instance the Invasion of Ethiopia.

This should be reflected in the game. What major landing did the Germans ever achieve? Germany was like a big cat. She didn't like to swim!

She never made a single huge amphibious operation of the War. Only the US/UK were capable of financing a D-day..The UK relied on US Ships to do this, that was the backbone of their fleet. Those cheap hastily manafactured landing craft pontoon boats and whatever else landbridges she could muster. Then she only crossed a reasonable stretch of land.

Germany was looking at her possibilities of Sea Lion but like I said it obviously didn't suite them in the least bit. The Kriegsmarine was in no position for any such operation and to balance the game properly all nations should have a certian time deficit in order to produce massive amphibious attacks on the D-Day 1 million man scale.

Also you should give the attacker certian bonuses if he does achieve the expensive tech that the US achieved to finance that invasion. I.E. So many turns of full or decent supply. Bonus for Shock landings, as the enemy didn't always know where the enemy is comming from Since France is quite small in this Hex game. It's very easy to cover. Units would unload right into other units that were protecting the beach head. You can't do that in a blocked hex here. We need the ability to force the Retreat of a unit<knocking it back> a hex from constant bombardment, aerial, naval and knocking it back from the front line. Not as as fully moving it 50 miles but rather as a representation that it has been displaced by superior amphibious Assualt forces...

That way the game is more diverse, realistic, etc...

The DEFINITELY lower the bombardment level of ships, they work better than a 1000 B-17s in this game. Highly inaccurate..

The Bomber should replace the battleships as frontline bombardment and even the Carriers<they shouldn't be a mainstay diet of N.Sea operations>

[JerseyJohn]

Minotaur

[Pasted from Amphibious Research Forum.]

Yes, I think those are exactly the sort of things that would be affected.

Also, I'm sure a lot of it would be learned in noncombat circumstances though it happens that some things are always learned the hard way. For example, at Tarawa the U. S. learned a lot about soft sand and shell explosions while at Dieppe the British/Canadians learned about tanks being stalled on beaches due to wet gravel.

The Germans would have been able to learn these things in the Baltic, the Italians in the Adriatic, the British in the Irish Sea, the Russians in the Black Sea/Caspian -- all areas normally far from the fighting.

Getting to Bill's point about amphibious evacuations, the British already had skills in this sort of operation before WW II from Gallipoli and also the Aegean by evacuating Greeks in the early 20s. During the war this experience came in handy at Dunkirk in '40, then in evacuating Wavell's troops from both Greece and Crete in '41 and later evacuating the Canadians from Dieppe -- where it was part of the plan for a change.

Evacuations and landings should be very dependant upon weather conditions. The British admitted that at Dunkirk, despite it being late spring/early summer, if the conditions had been bad, choppy waves, etc. the evacuation could not have been conducted effectively, if at all.

[note carried over from Amphibious Research Forum] I'll paste this response to you're original posting.

[ March 05, 2003, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

Several good points, as always. Like the comparrison of Germany to a big cat!

The Italians in 1935-36 shipped their Ethiopia bound troops through the Suez Canal to their small East African colonies of Eritea and Somaliland bordering Ethiopia. They built up first, then conducted a conventional land campaign, no amphibious invasion was involved but interestingly it is relavent in that they moved a large body of men pretty far and with great efficiency.

During the North African campaign the Germans were very impressed with Italy's ability to move both men and supplies from their mainland to Libya. Today the Death Run , as the Italians called it, is mainly remembered for sunken ships, but the amazing thing isn't the losses but that such an overwhelming proportion of what was sent actually made it through. Additionally, they made thorough preparations for a Malta invasion and, considering the massive airial softening of the target and tactical air support plus available naval bombardment focused on such a small target there's no reason whatever to assume it would have failed. It was Rommel's folly in getting Kesselring to cancel it, and Kesselring's for listening to him -- Rommel wanted the troops (a German parachute Brigade, Italian parachute regiment and an Italian infantry Division with attached units) sent at once to North Africa after capturing Tobruck.

True, Germany was not at first very skilled at this sort of thing. They demonstrated this at Crete in 41, where infantry was sent out in freightors without naval protection in water dominated by an opposing fleet. The result was easily predictable. They were relying entirely upon the Luftwaffe (shades of Dunkirk and Stalingrad!) for protection, and had to be reminded of air power's shortcomings.

If the Germans had spent more time and devoted more resources to preparing a large scale channel crossing, there's little doubt they could have done a more credible job in 1941 or 1942 than they were capable of doing in 1940. Naturally, they'd have needed to find some way of compensating for their lack of capital ships both in covering the crossing and in bombarding the British positions. A truly massive Luftwaffe buildup along the French coast would have been called for and some sort of naval protection brought up from the Low Countries and the Bay of Biscay to protect the flanks of the operation from surface ships. These covering forces would in turn have needed air cover spread east and west from the landing zone.

[JerseyJohn]

Bill and Minotaur

Neither of you care for the idea of giving the actual unit a Battleship Division's (as always I assume each counter represents at least two ships of the appropriate type) defensive value. Okay, you've both made valid points and it's foolish to argue about it.

My reasoning is based on the idea that the Amphibious Landing Unit is itself a temporary gathering of many different kinds of ships garnered from many different naval units. The actual shore bombardment would be carried out by slow obsolescent Battleships firing high explosive shells with more modern counterparts in their normal standing guard out at sea. That's the way the Americans did it, using ships such as The Texas and resurrected Pearl Harbor BBs to support the troops while the much newer Iowa and North Carolina class BBs (or was it New Jersey? the final class of American BB, Missouri Types) stood watch at sea. The British usually alloted Warspite, Malaya and Rodney, circa 1920s BBs with heavy guns but slow speeds.

En route to the landing area, they might act as escorts providing considerable defensive interdiction value though not likely to pursue a failed attacker. Plus, of course, they wouldn't leave the invasion armarda, which is why I say they shouldn't have an attack factor.

Softening the target should be the second priority of such a task force after that of transporting the troops. That's why I say they should hit the targe hex on their own after the appropriate air attacks (both land and carrier)have been carried out.

After the air attacks and shore bombardment from the Amphibious unit, I believe the unit being carried should have it's turn attacking whatever remains of the defending force. If, after all this, the defenders still hold (and by then they'd have earned my highest respect!), the landing operation would have been cancelled, the surviving assault troops returned to the nearest friendly ports (on this scale any vacant friendly coastal hex ought to be sufficient) and the armarda disbanded -- it literally ceases to exist for game purposes.

If the landing succeeds, the invasion force moves further inland under some conditions or remains where it landed in others.

The Amphibious Invasion Unit then becomes a port with a supply value still to be determined, but which should vary in proportion to it's distance from the nearest supply area. It would also allow reinforcing units to enter and use the unload function exactly as is done in a normal port. After a couple of full turns the port function has exhaused itself, the beachead is exhaused and the temporary unit vanishes. As in the earlier instance, it ceases to exist.

While serving as a port it has to have a defensive value both against naval and air attack.

As we've all probably got differing views on what this unit's capabilities are, let's define them more specifically before going any further.

Minotaur brought up an excellent point about the Allies late in the game being able launch many of these units virtually every turn. To prevent this I propose the following rule governing their existence:

Only ONE Amphibious Transport Unit can exist per Major Country at any given time. Such a unit is considered to exist from the time it is formed till the time it's temporary harbor/beachead function is completed. The owning player may choose to voluntarily disband the unit at any time, in which case the Army or Corps it was carrying is considered to be in normal transport and unable to land on an enemy controlled coastal hex. A new Amphibious Landing Unit may be built after the first FULL turn the owning country last possessed one.

Using this rule, in a typical game situation the maximum number of such units that could exist would be three Allied (one each for America, UK and USSR) and two Axis (one each for Germany and Italy).

If France is in the game (not Vichy) it can also create this type unit and is also limited to possessing one at any given time. Thus, in the unlikely event that all the major allied nations are in the war at the same time, the Allies could have as many as four such units in existence concurrently (Fr, Amr, UK & USSR).

[ March 05, 2003, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[pzgndr]

Assuming we keep unit stacking limited to 1 per hex, maybe we should increase the firing range to 2 hexes for fleets. Of course naval guns didn't actually shoot 50 miles, but the idea is that they would be in position to provide support and it wouldn't detract from the game. That way we can keep the transports separate from the warships.

Going back to the amphibious assault experience idea, how about this. Rather than create a new research track, let a number of landings result in a virtual "tech level" increase for the landing craft units based on collective experience gained. 2-3 unit landings could equal a level. Each level could add a combat modifier up to some reasonable maximum like +3 or maybe +4.

So, Germany could have L1 landing craft for Sealion based on landing experience in Norway with 2-3 units. The US could have L1 for Sicily following North Africa landings, L2 for Salerno landings, and L3 by D-Day. This would be more realistic than researching up to advanced levels without any actual landing experience.

[JerseyJohn]

Bill

Excellent ideas. At first sight I agree entirely with them but, as this has already proven to be a complex topic, I have to make allowance for later developments.

Even though it was my suggestion, I'd welcome the opportunity of not adding another research area, and your suggestion may well be the way to do so.

What remains primarily is limiting the number of units a country can have at sea at one time; mechanics of the beachead and cost of such an operation.

I think it ought to be fairly expensive per unit and the cost should be applied each turn to each unit engaged in amphibious operations. That should effectively discourage those roaming vikings searching for a cozy place for offloading and it would be preferable to the more arbitrary statement of 1 per country. As a ballpark figure I'd say the cost should be 100% of the ambhibed unit per turn. Units should be able to embark from a port and land in the same turn, or continue on the following turn if the objective is more distant in which case the owning country is charged 100% of that unit's cost again, same for the following turn, etc. . . ..

Transported units should be charged only once, same as at present, should be unable to land at enemy controled hexes, but should be able to embark and unload at a friendly port or unoccupied coastal hex during the same turn. Having to sit in the water a turn before offloading only makes them a target, slows the action, and provides an unrealistic opportunity for enemy action to negate the eligable coastal hex.

I think the two hex range for firing units is excellent. They aren't actually firing from 50 or 100 miles distance but moving in, firing, and returning to their outter deployment after the shore bombardment, switching over to a beachead protection role.

[pzgndr]

How to deal with those roaming vikings! We want to penalize these long fishing expeditions, but at the same time not penalize US landing craft that make a trans-Atlantic crossing (and the Japanese for the PTO). Charging an additional cost each turn is not a good solution.

Unit readiness should be a factor. Without an HQ, let's assume units at sea have a significant readiness drop. They start off at 100% (maybe less, but we'll call it 100% here). On turn 2 it could drop to 66%, then 33% on turn 3, and then 0% after that. Units with 0% readiness should only be allowed to unload in friendly ports. Landing craft and transports have no combat capability at sea, so they become virtually worthless after a couple of turns. If we can get the code to permit loading, movement, and assault all in the same turn, then short range invasions like Norway could happen without needing a HQ.

But with an HQ in the task force at sea, unit readiness could drop more slowly (like 5-10% per turn) and permit longer voyages. This would force you to risk a HQ at sea if you're serious about a long range invasion. Some way to have HQ links while at sea needs to be worked out, but that should be doable. Without that HQ, the vikings become worthless.

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

But with an HQ in the task force at sea, unit readiness could drop more slowly (like 5-10% per turn) and permit longer voyages. This would force you to risk a HQ at sea if you're serious about a long range invasion. Some way to have HQ links while at sea needs to be worked out, but that should be doable. Without that HQ, the vikings become worthless.

Now that's a cool idea.

As for amphib landings, I'd prefer to avoid a dedicated unit if possible and only use Corps. How about instead of researching specific Amphib Tech, research a broader "Operational Tech". Op Tech could affect beach landings, river crossings, and airborne units. Have any beach landings or airborne drops severely impact the unit's readiness value. With each increase in Op Tech, the readiness hit is lessened.

And for naval units, its striking power (ability to reduce an enemy unit's readiness) is increased. I'd rather naval units not be able to affect a unit's overall strength as they can now; makes them too powerful, IMO.

Beach landings would not be allowed at all until Op Tech level 1 is researched.

Airborne units would only be able to be created once you've reached a certain Op Tech level. Maybe level 1 or even 2. Airborne units would only be allowed to land on hexes that your air units can attack because you would need lift capacity to get them there. And their readiness would be impaired as described above. Personally I'm still not sold on Airborne units for a game at this strategic level. I really think they might end up as either overly powerful, and people will whine and complain about them. Or overly useless and people will -you guessed it- whine and complain about them.

Anyway, I like the idea that Shaka suggested the other day: only allowing Corps to land on beaches, not Tank or Army groups. This will make landings tougher, but full Tank Groups really shouldn't be doing amphib landings anyway. There are *very* real dangers to this type of Op. An amphib assault should be extremely vulnerable, IMO. It's success often depends more on secrecy and surprise than anything else. I've heard and read a number of times how if the Panzer units had been released in a timely manner, the Normandy invasions would have been pushed back into the sea.

For river crossings, increase the inherent movement cost over a river. As Op Tech levels increase, this movement cost is lessened.

- Chris

[Desert Dave]

I definitely like Bill's idea of having readiness reduced according to how many turns are spent at sea. This seems more realistic than actual strength point losses. Also, risking one of your very valuable HQs at Sea should indeed reduce the amount of readiness loss. :cool:

In any event, I would favor some certain game device to curtail all those gamey nuisance raids.

JJ, as for your idea about limiting the number of amphibious units allowed, this would be problematical. After all, just ONE corps sized amphib unit is rarely going to be able to establish (... and then hold) a sufficient perimeter to permit eventual reinforcement, especially in France.

There will probably be instances when 2 or 3 marine units will be required in order to attack an entrenched defender, allowing one or more surviving invaders to land.

Perhaps the expense of creating such a marine unit should be the only limiting factor? Although here, 4 Xs the transport cost seems a bit high... how about 3 Xs with L0 tech and this reduced by one level for each advance?

And consequently, in regard to the research improvements, I would suggest that these areas do not HAVE to be L0 all the way up to L5. Why not allow some researchable techs to only go as high as 2, or 3?

Thus, the "marine tech" (... which would include all of those many myriad factors which you have previously alluded to, JJ) would max out at, say L2. L0 would allow the most rudimentary landing operations, whereas each of the next 2 levels would incrementally improve the attack strength of our generic "marine" unit, AND reduce the amphib transport cost.

Speaking of which, several other tech areas could also be reduced, such as rockets. After all, why can't the various techs all have their own maximum level?

I am presuming (... praying, actually) that our Tech Tree will grow a little larger, so that the new Airborne tech! could also max out at L2. And of course, the various techs would each have their own unique costs to implement.

Finally, I would favor a reduction in the effects of shore bombardment, BUT... the range increased to 2 hexes (... however, only coastal hexes may be attacked). I fully agree that the "invasion support" concept includes random movement and evasion, and does NOT necessarily imply that the bombarding ships are standing static, 100 miles from shore.

[JerseyJohn]

Bill, Wolfe & Immer

A ton of new ideas!

I like Bill's idea about reducing a unit at sea's effectiveness with each passing turn; this helps cut down on the need for a specialized amphibious unit. If a unit can embark from a friendly port and land on a hostile shore the same turn, with that destination hex being softened in the manner described, etc., it would make it impossible for the defender to move a few units forward and block the candidate hexes, which would in itself be progress. Also, for short hauls such as between England and France the phasing player would be able to land, move inland and bring reinforcements across, including HQs all in one turn. I think that's essential, otherwise late in the game it becomes impossible to launch such an invasion.

Of course, a good player would defend his coastline but allowing bombardment from two hexes through the temporarily halted invasion unit (still at sea) presumable after air attack of targe hes, should determine quickly whether or not the invasion would succeed. I'd also favor allowing the invasion unit to battle it's way ashore if the hex is still defended. Of course, in this instance, if an adjacent hex is undefended the landing could take place there.

HQs at sea in the function you've described is a great idea. It would allow for a long term objective such as Operation Torch while not encouraging endless viking voyages.

I think these ideas are much simpler and more easily adapted than the ones I originally proposed and would definitely be in favor of incorporating them into the game.

Wolfe

Yes, I still think there's a lot of merit in airborne units and like your idea of a tech research which could also be a catch all for several different, shall we say, Strategic Operation Technologies. .

If I might be so obnoxius I'd suggest you take all your ideas out of here and put them in some forum of your own creation where we could pick away at them in more topic specific fashion. Glad you posted them -- but you're evicted!

Immer

Like those ideas a lot. I think the part about results on levels below 5 is a good one. I think using Wolfe's idea of a Strategic Operations Techs could include numerous different types of operations in one blanket category. Amphibious and Airborne operations could be among them along with the related ideas you were discussing. As you suggest, some things would peak at L=1 & 2, others 3 & 4 with a handful peaking at 5.

This would be a bargain research field as the same research points apply to several areas. I think that would be good because Bill started off saying, researching landing craft (or parachutes or shore bombardment etc) isn't the same as rocket science (or the Manhattan Project) but these areas do need to be developed.

Fantastic Results and I'm hoping to be able to post more on these things in Wolfe's New Operational Tech Forum !

I also like your ideas on the fighting units but will stop here to allow for some additional feedback, fresh ideas and hopefully even some new voices before posting again.

[ March 05, 2003, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Wolfe:

How about instead of researching specific Amphib Tech, research a broader "Operational Tech". Op Tech could affect beach landings, river crossings, and airborne units.

Well, we have arrived at a similar idea almost simultaneously... but, the thing is, what if you wanted ONLY marine tech but not Airborne?

It doesn't seem that much of a problem to include several more Tech areas, especially in terms of game time necessary to assess your specific strategic needs.

There could be limits on how many of these "Special Op" units could be deployed, AND, the expenditure required to build and research these areas would likely limit their use. Only those nations with over-riding interest in deploying them would invest in them, yes?

Nonetheless, your "Operational Tech" idea is a good one, and might well prove to be the better solution.

[JerseyJohn]

Immer

Yes, I agree that people researching landing craft wouldn't be researchin paratroopers, but a lot of these fields would develop in parrellel.

For example, airdrops became a key part of amphibious landings and were used as such in Sicily and at Normandy. They were from the start used in conjunction with river crossings --Germany in Holland 1940, Allies in Market Garden 1944, Allies in crossing the Rhine Spring of 1945. That last operation actually was an amphibious operation involving landing craft and all the related techniques other than BBs, but opposite bank bombardment by heavy artillery was conducted and spotted in a very similar manner.

[SeaWolf_48]

Welcome Men. Great topic.

It seems that Bills ideas all revolve around using this amphibious assult in conjuction with SC and not SC2. I might be wrong.

I think the first item must be having beaches to land on. Germany and England (in 1940) did not have to cover all of the coast line at one time like the game now portrays. A landing beach hex should be developed.

Almost any troops could be landed on a beach after a little trainning, but developing the technology to land on a beach took a lot of research and industry tooling. Higgins boats, LST's, LCI, LCP, LCT. DUWK's etc, were years in development. We really need a research item on the research chart too develop Amphibious Assult.

With the no stacking rule, the only way to conquer the beach is if the defending unit would retreat during combat. This is a point that I keep bringing up, but a strong German unit defending a beach hex with a 3 rating and 12-14 points will never be completely destroyed unless you have 10 or more Air units, with BB's. But if the German unit in Normandy was attacked with a strong Infantry unit with strong Air support and Navel bombardment, and Paratroops, it would retreat-not be completely destroyed. Then the Infantry Corps could land on the beach (I think that a Infantry Corps should be the only unit capable of landing on the beach, also, whoever you are that mentioned that).

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf

Yes, and all valid points. Of course a retreat option would help. I didn't mention it originally because it's always been shot down and is really a seperate game issue, but I'm glad you brought it up all the same.

I'm glad this thing is leaning toward SC 1 and that Bill has helped anchor it there. In his response to the Feedback question, Hubert said he's still concentrating very heavily on SC 1. Hopefully he's planning to put a lot of these ideas we're all coming up with into a new monster patch while he's working on SC 2; which might be the Pacific Theater or any number of other things he hasn't yet disclosed.

[SeaWolf_48]

Well John, I've been away for a while, you have alot of postings, a busy beaver!

What did you think of designated beach hexes?

[pzgndr]

Seawolf, SC is final so all ideas are oriented toward SC2 - whatever form that will take. We're all just thinking out loud. Some ideas will prove to be practical and others will not, depending on what Hubert wants to do. We will all have to wait and see.

I'll throw in another 2 cents against the research idea for amphibious ops, airborne ops and such and then get off my soapbox. These were not technological challenges, and not a whole lot changed during the war. There were certainly higher costs involved and experience to be gained, but these can be worked into the game without adding more research tech areas with limited advancement.

The research system is pretty simple right now with 10 basic areas, and is one of SC's great attributes. I'm in no rush to see it made more complicated. SC2 does NOT need to become HOI Jr. :eek:

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by SeaWolf_48:

Well John, I've been away for a while, you have alot of postings, a busy beaver!

What did you think of designated beach hexes?

SeaWolf

I noticed you weren't posting as much and figured you were busy at other things. Glad to see you back again. Played and enjoyed your 1940 Italian Scenario.

The beach idea has been thrown about but on this large scale I thing there's a problem in defining exactly what a terrain hex contains!

Had no intention of becoming this busy. Just before all this activity exploded I was saying in E-mails to people I'm playing the game with that I intended to cut back drastically on the number of postings I was making!

[ March 05, 2003, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Bill

Disagree on the increased research. Adding Wolfe's catch all field and the Weather Research field mentioned elsewhere will not turn this into HOI junior. It obviously took a lot of work to turn that thing into the glowing fiasco it became. The suggestions being considered here aren't to make the game more complicated for the sake of added complication, they are to improve areas that are just plain wrong and that ought to be revised.

Amphibious operations, Airborne Operations and a number of other areas of warfare changed dramatically during the course of the war. Your earlier suggestion about solving some of this through prior experience is fine, but there is still room for some added research. Twelve categories is not a huge jump.

Regarding SC and SC 2, Hubert doesn't seem to consider this version of the game a closed issue so if improvements can still be issued in a patch I'd welcome it.

Ironically, as I said earlier, I think many of your excellent ideas lend themselves to improving SC 1.

To me the primary item on such a patch list would be an expanded Scenario Editor, allowing individual players more freedom to limit or define some of these issues on their own. In effect that would leave Hubert much freer to devote his energies to SC 2.

I know you've already commented on this but, as the forum is dropping down the list I'm pasting it's URL here for those who might have missed it.

link to Scenario Editor Forum.

[ March 05, 2003, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]