Gamey Strategies

[husky65]

Its too late to implement in the release of SC (I don't want to be the person suggesting a delay), but either in a patch or SC2 you could implement in the 'declare war' process an 'Amphib landings' Yes/No box, tick yes and your transports can unload across a beach, click no and they can only do so at a harbour.

As a starting point this could cost about 450 MPPs (to click yes) simulating the construction of landing craft - a bit of testing will tell you if its too low or too high.

[Massattack]

Leave a conquered country denuded of friendly units at your peril. I used both Corps in Norway to support my invasion of Sweden, and the AI landed a UK Army beside Oslo and liberated it.

Regards.

[David Brown]

A couple of things:

First, don't mistake gameplay for simulation (or visa versa). The game may be turn based, but is it supposedly simulating simultaneous movement by both sides. What looks like transports sitting off the cost for weeks on end isn't really. Of course it isn't 'really' anything. As someone else pointed out, it's fun, but it ain't history.

As for the invasion of Sweden, the parallel is Norway, not Sealion, and Germany got the drop on Norway pretty good. The economic arguments for not invading Sweden are good, but only applicable because Sweden bent over backwards not to antagonize the Nazi regime. If Sweden had said, "You're a bunch of loonies, and we're not selling you our iron ore", you've got a whole new ballgame. Although I always find arguments based upon "Hitler wouldn't do that because it's irrational" rather suspect. Hitler irrational? Nahhhh.

Lastly, because someone else mentioned it, the British invasion of Madagascar started from the Clyde in Scotland, but picked up two aircraft carriers and some other ships in Cape Town. The entire force then gathered at Durban in South Africa before moving onto Madagascar. So, you were right, they didn't invade directly from the British Isles.

[Lars]

Originally posted by husky65:

Its too late to implement in the release of SC (I don't want to be the person suggesting a delay), but either in a patch or SC2 you could implement in the 'declare war' process an 'Amphib landings' Yes/No box, tick yes and your transports can unload across a beach, click no and they can only do so at a harbour.

As a starting point this could cost about 450 MPPs (to click yes) simulating the construction of landing craft - a bit of testing will tell you if its too low or too high.

Perhaps a better and easier fix would be to raise the cost of transport and then add another tech for amphibious assault/shipping to help reduce it.

Then, if multiple landings are your thing, you have a way of doing it, otherwise you'll just have to save up the MPP's if you only want to do one or two.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Lars:

Perhaps a better and easier fix would be to raise the cost of transport and then add another tech for amphibious assault/shipping to help reduce it.

Good idea. The cost of transport should reflect a higher cost, since planning and execution involves more than merely lining up the landing craft and setting sail. There would be other support craft, such as mine-clearing and anti-coastal and close-in protection beyond the larger task-force fleets.

Perhaps 20% of unit's value would be a good start. And, the idea of R&D for better amphib, as Mr Higgins of Louisiana did for USA is also an excellent approach.

In addition, I would like to see lower READINESS when the units do make it ashore. The level of cohesion simply cannot be the same as when invading across a land border.

Maybe... one turn at sea, you hit the beach at 80%, and 10% less for each additional turn?

This would almost force the invader to include a HQ, else his units would deteriorate quite quickly.

It also would eliminate many nuisance raids. I can too easily imagine PBEM players throwing Corps around to cause mayhem on foreign shores. :eek:

This should NOT be able to be done so nonchalantly. After all, IRL there were few capabilities to launch nuisance raids -- the Brit Commandos and Italian frogmen are the only two I can think of.

[pzgndr]

Another option with transports is to tweak the action points to provide movement and the load/unload option. You can load, move, and unload at friendly ports all in one turn, so it should be OK to move to a coast hex and assault. I don't see why transports should have to sit adjacent to an invasion hex for a turn.

At least allow movement combined with unloading as an option. That would still require a turn to load and stage invasion forces, but not adjacent to the planned invasion areas. With FOW, you could still identify when an invasion is imminent but wouldn't know exactly where or when.

[Lars]

I think that was hubert's design call to balance amphibious landings. If they didn't have to wait a turn to unload at the beach your navy and airforce wouldn't get a crack at them. And a port is a port after all, you should be able to unload quickly there.

I like Immer's idea of less readiness, perhaps couple it with no movement or attack after landing to reflect the beach battle and to give the defender a chance to react. Not having the full version it's tough to say where the balance lies. Does anybody know if the Germans destroy the ports after D-Day? Perhaps a port should be randomly razed after capture.

[sheepshooter]

Hmmm - why do you think, that the way, the game handles invasions is not good enough? In a game, that is set out not to micromanage every single bit of military and economic tasks, it is completely okay, if there are certain "unrealistic" features in it. Personally, I feel, that it works quite well, units are out of supply after one turn, if there is no HQ, so players will have to take one with them. Also, units suffer landing casualties, to show, that it is more difficult than a "normal" border crossing. And, most of the time, the available hexes for landing are limited, so it usually takes more than one turn to land a reasonable force.

For the annoyance raids: I think, getting a corps into enemy territory as an annoyance is quite the same as the various special forces (like German´s "Divison Brandenburg", like (UK) Stirling´s SAS, the Commandos, the SBS, Italian frogmen, US Special Forces (don´t know, how they were called then) and certainly there were such units on Japanese side as well) - not really a threat in a military sense, as it is just one unit (probably just a Corps, if players do this as an annoyance), but nevertheless, it forces players to have garrison troops - for me, it works.

Hey, at last, there is a game, that doesnt focus on that micromanagement, but on the big view, on the strategies and big-scale tactics. I never liked to play those Avalon Hill games with thousands of options, all of them just very limited in actually changing something, but if you find the right combination of thousands of possible actions, you win - while this might be of interest for many: These do not seem to be the main target audience for SC, do they?

Best,

Sheepshooter

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> As originally posted by Lars:

Perhaps a better and easier fix would be to raise the cost of transport and then add another tech for amphibious assault/shipping to help reduce it.

Good idea. The cost of transport should reflect a higher cost, since planning and execution involves more than merely lining up the landing craft and setting sail. There would be other support craft, such as mine-clearing and anti-coastal and close-in protection beyond the larger task-force fleets.

Perhaps 20% of unit's value would be a good start. And, the idea of R&D for better amphib, as Mr Higgins of Louisiana did for USA is also an excellent approach.

In addition, I would like to see lower READINESS when the units do make it ashore. The level of cohesion simply cannot be the same as when invading across a land border.

Maybe... one turn at sea, you hit the beach at 80%, and 10% less for each additional turn?

This would almost force the invader to include a HQ, else his units would deteriorate quite quickly.

It also would eliminate many nuisance raids. I can too easily imagine PBEM players throwing Corps around to cause mayhem on foreign shores. :eek:

This should NOT be able to be done so nonchalantly. After all, IRL there were few capabilities to launch nuisance raids -- the Brit Commandos and Italian frogmen are the only two I can think of.</font>

[pzgndr]

Only problem with a time-at-sea readiness reduction is that there's a difference between US invasions originating in the US (which should not be penalized) and other local invasions like Norway or D-Day. Keep it simple and let FOW account for being at sea if players want to delay landings.

Research for amphib stuff is like mech infantry - there's just not enough there for 5 research levels. Either you have the basic capability or not. Industrial tech levels will reduce the cost for transports, so this abstractly covers general R&D advances.

I like units being able to move some after landing; it partly compensates for having to sit like ducks adjacent to the invasion hex for a turn. But maybe add a random chance that a unit can't move, like landing losses.

And speaking of landing losses, I'll repeat a previous request for beach hexes where chances for landing losses are reduced. This would still allow landings anywhere else, but at increased risk. Supply from HQ units could also be tied to beach hexes, providing a logistics incentive to secure a beachhead.

[Lars]

Thinking about it a bit more, I think the automatic destruction of a port after capture would be an good simple fix. It would make it easy to get in but hard to get out. Would take care of the one turn invasion of Sweden or Greece as it would take awhile to get your units out and make you think about them being stuck there until the port was repaired.

As I recall, the Germans did quite the job on Cherbourg and Antwerp. Really screwed up the Allies logistics. I don't think the Brits would have just handed a port over to the Germans either.

And on a side note, the Russians destroy the cities and mines, but don't bother destroying the ports, very strange.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Sheepshooter:

Hey, at last, there is a game, that doesnt focus on that micromanagement, but on the big view, on the strategies and big-scale tactics. I never liked to play those Avalon Hill games with thousands of options, all of them just very limited in actually changing something, but if you find the right combination of thousands of possible actions, you win - while this might be of interest for many: These do not seem to be the main target audience for SC, do they?

OTOH, closer attention to -- at least the major "details," such as partisans in Greece or other Minors, or combined marine corps landings with Para drops, could very well provide a missing aesthetic that would make the game -- a cut above.

Chess is fun, over and over again, with very few bells & whistles, so I agree that the big strategy-picture is most vital.

However, since most of us have played many, many WW2 GS games, and read a lot of history, we like those aspects that provide Xtra historical flavor.

These are all personal requests, and each game-maker has their own (... usually thoroughly researched) viewpoint. It never hurts to promote what is it that would give you -- the buyer, the most pleasure and re-playability.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill Macon:

Only problem with a time-at-sea readiness reduction is that there's a difference between US invasions originating in the US (which should not be penalized) and other local invasions like Norway or D-Day.

But why should USA be any different? As you say, the R&D can account for amphib tech, but who's to say the Germans couldn't have equalled America's maritime effort? If Doenitz had held sway, then transports would surely have been on his high agenda?

And where and when is USA going to conduct a trans-Atlantic invasion? Perhaps North Africa, but they should be penalized just as any other Major Power, shouldn't they?

Judging by the (... relative) difficulty they had in Tunisia, against a small German holding force, it would seem that their ability to reorganize and mount an effective offensive was not particularly greater than any others.

You shouldn't be able to simply pour tanks and artillery ashore and then make arrow-straight for the opponents Capital. Seems like some game mechanism for a time delay is needed so to ship-shape the troops.

[Aloid]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

<SNIP>...

Judging by the (... relative) difficulty they had in Tunisia, against a small German holding force, it would seem that their ability to reorganize and mount an effective offensive was not particularly greater than any others.

...[/QB]

Agreed, the US had "issues" early on, but certainly made up for it through experience and training later. Just look at all the amphib ops in the Pacific, and well, er, Normandy was a massive op too...

Wonder what would have happened if Bocage was not in the Normandy area? Would the Allies have been able to make the straight arrow assault on Paris?

Aloid

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Aloid:

Wonder what would have happened if Bocage was not in the Normandy area? Would the Allies have been able to make the straight arrow assault on Paris?

The logistical "tail" is about -- what? 6 or 7 times the size of the head? Like one of those old dauntless dinosaurs, maybe killed by a Comet?

Speaking of which, I am sometimes an old dinosaur, and sometimes also a Bocage-eating one, who doesn't always know when the clouds are not passing clouds, but airy emphemeral thoughts instead.

Anyway, to land ashore, and assemble all the support elements, and establish HQs and perimeters and mulberries and golf-courses for the Officers -- takes time, is all I was saying.

[Aloid]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

<snip> ...The logistical "tail" is about -- what? 6 or 7 times the size of the head? Like one of those old dauntless dinosaurs, maybe killed by a Comet?

Speaking of which, I am sometimes an old dinosaur, and sometimes also a Bocage-eating one, who doesn't always know when the clouds are not passing clouds, but airy emphemeral thoughts instead.

Anyway, to land ashore, and assemble all the support elements, and establish HQs and perimeters and mulberries and golf-courses for the Officers -- takes time, is all I was saying.

Heh! I think your skies were clear, however you left out the brewing of the tea... that all important Brit cloud

Aloid

[pzgndr]

But why should USA be any different?

A trans-Atlantic crossing for an invasion of Morocco will take considerably longer than channel crossings, North Sea crossings, or Mediterranean operations. So if any time penalty is given for being at sea, then the US landings will suffer. Same for transporting units from Britain to Egypt; units would arrive worthless and require time to refresh. This seems more unrealistic than what we already have.

IMHO, we should focus on the landings themselves rather than the transit, that's all. At this scale, the transports and time at sea are really irrelevant. Unless transports are attacked and damaged enroute, just assume units hit the beach or friendly ports ready to go. Random landing casualties and other random effects like a readiness reduction and/or loss of movement should simulate landing problems during seaborne invasions. These random effects would represent *some* opposition or defensive preparations, modified by the presence of adjacent enemy units (assume they're spread out to cover coastal defenses).

If beaches are eventually added, a combination of terrain effects and presence of enemy units would provide an broad spectrum of landing risks to consider, from undefended beach hexes (best) to defended non-beach hexes (worst). :cool:

[Lars]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

If beaches are eventually added, a combination of terrain effects and presence of enemy units would provide an broad spectrum of landing risks to consider, from undefended beach hexes (best) to defended non-beach hexes (worst). :cool:

At this scale every hex has a suitable beach. It was one of the things I didn't like about Third Reich.

[pzgndr]

Even at this scale, there are coastal areas more suitable for seaborne invasions and establishment of beachheads for logistics than other areas, at least for army-size units and tank groups. Landing on less-suitable areas should be risker, but still possible.

Part of military terrain analysis for both attacker and defender is identifying key terrain. With no beaches to consider for seaborne invasions, this important consideration becomes a bit irrelevant. It's not a major issue right now, but should be considered for an advanced game option eventually.

A clarification to my last post. Enemy defended coast meant enemy unit adjacent to coast hex, since you can't invade occupied hexes.

[Stalin's Organ]

I like the idea of amphibious Tech.

The Allies had to gain a lot of amphibious experience in the Pacific in 1942 and 43 that was put to good use at D-Day , Husky et al andthat wasn't available for Torch or Ironclad.

Perhaps part of the effect could be to reduce landing casualties?

Yes I guess it's too late for changes, but that never stopped anyone from dreaming

As for simulation & acuracy - certainly there are matters that are sub-scale, but I see no great reason to sacrifice reasonable historical accuracy for game play. The main point of computer games, IMO, is that fairly complicated systems canbe included by automation without need for players to spend bucket-loads of time on them!!

[Von Bismarck]

I have to revert back to the original posting where someone was voicing dissatisfaction to the combat surprise bonus offered to invasion forces. There are some other very good points made as to the fact that logistically it is a huge undertaking not easily accomplished, especially with surprise. What I found interesting was that some believed that it could never happen. Even when Norway was well aware that an invasion was threatening, it was not as if they could fully mobilize overnight. It isn't a light switch that can be flicked on and off. So it basically comes down to initiative, and that is why I believe that the surprise landings should be awarded a slight bonus on the first round of the landings.

That being said I would also be in favor of higher costs for the transport, of units landing on foreign soil. Perhaps an additional pop-up window that would offer the choice of invasion or transfer.

My last point I would like to make is that an invasion of the U.S. mainland by a German force, was historically and contemporarily laughable. But, the game offers us a chance to play things out a bit differently. Since the scope of the game is European in it's inception, then one has to assume that the U.S. does not automatically enter the war as it did on Dec. 7th. Accordingly, the actions of all the powers to be, would affect the decisions of the U.S. leaders to gear up for eventual war or not. I am not a political theorist, specializing in U.S. prewar political strategies, but who is to say that if the U.S. was not attacked that fateful Sunday morning, that they might have prolonged their full participation, and mobilization until a much later date? If that were possible then who knows what kind of success a German war machine might have enjoyed at all of the allies', and neutrals' expense?

In summary; It makes sense to me to leave it in the game. Adjust it, tweak it, but leave it.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Lars:

Perhaps a better and easier fix would be to raise the cost of transport and then add another tech for amphibious assault/shipping to help reduce it.

That was my original thought - the problem with it is that it adds the same expense to shipping an army from port to port as it does in moving from port to landing across a beach.

IRL port to port is easy, going up a beach much harder.

[USGrant]

Just thinking out loud here, but how about filling in the "missing" infantry tech with something that goes like this:

1. Submachine guns - improved soft attack and defense

2. Basic amphibious/marines - reduced random losses on landing, maybe reduced transport costs for infantry only

3. Motorized infantry - increased readiness or action points (not sure which is more applicable)for infantry

4. Mechanized infantry - ditto

5. Advanced amphibious - reduced random losses on landing, improved readiness

The basic chance of losses on landing and readiness could be increased, to be offset by levels 2 and 5 above. Armor would always be subject to the higher loss rates when landing on uncontrolled hexes, encouraging realistic landings by infantry first to secure the beaches.

Level 2 would be the typical Sea Lion situation and Level 5 would be Overlord.

This series of improvements is slightly more complicated than the other techs - they each seem to be linear increases in one or two attributes. I'm sure SuperHubert can figure out a way to program something like this :cool:

[ July 08, 2002, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: USGrant ]