SC suggestion re: amphib assaults

[Shaka of Carthage]

One of the things that bothers me in SC is the way ground units are handled once they become sea borne. So I would like to offer a suggestion on what I consider a realistic, yet still playable solution. First the method, then the reasons.

The Change

Current method, where a unit at/next to a port has a "transport" option, would require a slight change. The unit could only unload if it is in a port.

Corp, and only a Corp, would have an additional option to transport. The new one would be amphibious. Cost would be the same as the cost of building a new Corp (it should be expensive). This unit could unload as is possible now. Any hex, anywhere.

Reason (ie justification)

Corps and Armies have alot of heavy equipment (trucks, tanks, assault guns, artillery, ammunition, etc) that requires special equipment (found at ports) to load and unload them. It is even worse for the Tank Groups, since they have alot more of the heavy stuff.

Amphibious operations were created so that specialized troops could establish an initial beachead on an enemy held shore. These special troops, utilizing special skills and equipment, after they established this beachead, would then acquire a port so that more conventional units could get ashore.

Those specialized troops were indoctrinated to function even with high casualties (since storming a beach was no cake walk). And they had to be taught to use amphibious ships so they and thier equipment could get ashore.

While your normal amphib experts could teach conventional infantry units some amphibious assault skills (as the US Marines did to the US Army), the major expense was the amphibious assault ships that were needed.

Thanks,

Barry

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Part of the head ache in the real war was limited access to finite quantities of naval craft that were specific to invasions.

Now if we can be stuck with subs that sure as hell did not operate in large cluster f**ks, maybe the game needs inclusion of a unit type to become these naval assault units?

Sure they would end up like subs ie all dumped in a single counter, but at least it would be a beginning.

I remember reading about invasions in the Pacific where invasions hung in the balance due to these valuable assets being suddenly exposed to enemy surface action.

Somehow the game has to find some way to include these.

That the counters "convert" to a naval looking unit while at sea, just doesn't seem to simulate this right. There is a cost involved, but it is only reflected as an expense, not a physical entity.

That method needs more work in my opinion.

[Liam]

In real wars, you need troop transport ships to move troops from one port another. You could have a makeshift port, that has been done... by engineers... Though it takes time... See, ships are small relative to the amount of troops fielded in our conflicts. It took many ships to bring the US Troops to Europe. As far a delivery system, you need an actual amphibious craft, that usually has an armament. Generally carrying a certian amount of troops depending on the type of craft. Even tanks, cannot be landed unless they're amphibiously adapted which few are or were during the War. You have to land the ground forces then proceed with the engineers to unload the tanks which takes time. You can land troops by air and by aircraft that are designed during WW2, makeshift gliders were used. The Germans had quite a nice one that you could fit a tank in it's belly...but only small #s by air that's extremely expensive and dangerous as well.

You need two types of craft. An amphibious landing craft, that is specially made that includes Combat Engineers that create makeshift ports and operate equipment to supply the initial troops after they storm the beach head from their amphibious landing craft. Then you actually just need more or less plain ocean liners gutted to transport troops, which you just assume most major power had. Though amphibious craft were not cheap and you needed many, you wouldn't want to bring over too many in one boat cause if the enemy targeted and destroyed that you'd be a dead duck. So men were sparse and so were the craft so they could avoid coastal batters, enemy navies and aircraft..including enemy snipers and riflemen on the beach head.

These ships are not well represented in this game, you pay a certian amount of MPPs to transport anywhere anyway anyhow....which is completely inaccurate, the Germans never had the transport capability that this game represents to invade Britian. She would have made these craft but that should cost money... Also the troops who land and establish the beachhead were marines... Most of them weren't regulars. Either Marines or Paratroopers which are also seperate and more expensive to supply and create than regular Armies. So perhaps we may combine the future unit as A Marine Transport Fleet.

Getting armies here to there, is regular transport....Paras, though played a huge role in crete and in the Normandy/Market Garden invasion... Are sort of still a minor...You could probably include them, but there are many other things to include as well if you're to do that. Of course nothing is better to cut supply then dropping Paras behind enemy lines and cutting communica and blowing bridges etc... and they took some of the heaviest losses...

[Liam]

To add to my EXTRA most wanted units in SC2... see below.........

Artillery/AntiAircraft/AntiTank/Antiship/and even strategic Bombardment... all included in one unit... Which is rough but simple. Call it a Gun Fleet <better than rockets> that are misrepresented in this game for they never hit any ground troops in WW2 and I don't think any would ever been made that could. Scuds even today are terror weapons only cruise missiles, etc.. or close range rockets<in WW2> are effective, of course all now different computer targeting systems. Something that wouldn't be concieved of technologically in the 1940s....

Also they include Cruisers, but not Destroyers. I have mentioned several times that we should have Destroyer Fleets. For Raiding, for extra support of Navies...and for Convoys a cheap naval unit aside from subs that any nation can buy and did. If you're going to create an italian sub, you mine as well get rid of it and assume that it was a support ship to the Italian Navy... If you're going to say that Destoyers were only used as support ships. The Germans used them extensively to resupply u-boats and to raid the N.Atlantic. Plus it would give a bonus to the Baltic fleet and prevent stupid things like amphib landings directly in Germany which was impossible...just cut supply for combat vs heavier vessels on open seas. Galleys of WW2 if you will...

I also would like to see bombers, fighters and subs more accurately accounted for. The changes we all know I have mentioned them and others have.... You could include Medium bomber fleet or Fighter/Bomber fleet which would replace fighters being used on ground forces which they could only do limited damage upon. After they dropped their ordnance they had little or no capability to kill in large #s...I doubt many straight up fighter squadrons were ever responsible for the amount of damage they do in this game vs... Though you're cutting corners by assuming they're included...

Increase the Size of the Map and Atlantic ocean by the way to include these new weapons... Which would also be more accurate and that way the military #s could be more properly represented. I have many other ideas for unique or real units. All of which have merit and would make gameplay more realistic. If you're going to go a bit more Strategic and bit less tactical that's a different story. But even HQs are superflous... Why have HQs and not some other quality units. Does anyone understand what I mean? Also an HQ would die fast if you attacked it by land...if it was exposed to direct enemy forces EVER...

not take a little damage...Got a trillion more ideas someone start a new topic and lets bring up these things. All in one thread. And focus upon the subject.....For it is of ultra importance to improve gameplay and to discus these very very dire aspects of our Game...

[John DiFool]

The thing is, transport at the moment is very

inexpensive as compared to the real war. Check

out any book which goes into detail about

amphibious ops from a strategic perspective-if

the author did his homework he will say that

there was rarely enough shipping to go around.

The Allies constantly shuffled transports around

the globe from 42-44: from Torch to Sicily to the

Pacific, then back again for Overlord.

Just requiring a transport unit would work for me-

100-150 MPPs, the latter value 4x the cost now

(tho it is a one time thing if not sunk).

John DiFool

[JerseyJohn]

John DiFool

I think, in the current framework, that's the only realistic solution. In an earlier forum I suggested it Cost Germany 4x what it costs the British and Americans to transport units. Your idea adds an aspect I hadn't considered, that it's also too easy for the Allies to transport!

EXCEPTION

The single excpetion should be U. S. units starting out from the United States, and Canadian units starting out from Canada. In both cases the transport cost should be what it is now. If not it would give an undue penalty to the Allies for entering these units and in reality many of them would be making the trip on converted ocean liners that weren't used for invasion landings.

In all other cases let's say making it 4x the current expense for the Allies to transport and between 6 and 8x, depending on region, for the Axis

-- ie, Germany has best transport in the Baltic @ 4x and it would cost 6x for them in North Sea and 8x anywhere else. Italy should pay 4x in Mediteranean/Red Sea, 6x in Black Sea if Dardenelles is Axis controlled, otherwise Italian transport would be impossible; Italy pays 8x in the Atlantic/North Sea if Gibraltar is Axis, otherwise Italian transport is impossible.

It looks complicated but I think it could work easily in the present system.

[Liam]

That's why the Germans never invaded any other nations besides Norway across a sea or ocean during WW2...The Allies had the Navy/Supplies/Wealth to mount the Normandy invasion...They used existing Italian ships to transport to N.Africa and Crete was an Airdrop... I have heard a famous evacuation of German's in pockets during the end from the Red Army...Though in this game I transport to China and back, and there is no penalty...

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Welcome to the limits of the game, where if country A can do a thing, then the design feature becomes available to any side wishing to employ it.

There was a lot of things one side could do that the others certainly could not.

The Germans mastered Blitzkreig, The Russians were able to radically locate the source of the industry, The US was able to conduct large scale strategic bombing, the Germans used lots of submarine warfare, the western allies used a lot of ASW developments.

But once you design a feature into the game, it is essentially just a feature in the game.

So the fact that the Germans never really had historically the capacity for large scale amphibious operations, becomes a problem, but then in this game it is merely just an option exploitable by all.

[kenfedoroff]

My two cents:

I would prefer to keep the ability of transports to unload onto an empty hex.

I like the idea (the name of the author/thread escapes me) where rocket units for the USA & Brits are dumped and replaced with an amphib/para unit.

USA/Brits Rockets would also be dumped from Research and replaced with an amphib/para research slot.

The special ability of the USA/Brit amphib/para unit would be to attack a shore based unit (from a sea hex) -AND- (should a hex become empty) move after combat into the vacant hex. (This move after combat ability could ONLY happen from sea to shore).

Of course, the cost of these units would be expensive relative to other units, (as they were in real life).

I would also vote for an increased cost for transport on the Axis side.

It is my understanding the Axis had trouble gathering together barge/craft for Sea Lion.(There must be some research/historians on the Forum who could give us the numbers for the desired initial lift capacity for Sea Lion, and what was actually put together.)

OK. I will go look for my SC Learner's Permit and move to the challenge board.

Ken

[Steve C]

Good thread, interesting point made by all. I hear 'ya on the rockets, they're a fun unit but unrealistic in effect. By the time you get them up to level 4 or 5, and all those experience points racked up by raining death from several hexes out with little chance of suffering attrition in return, the SC rocket units are a Saddam Hussein wet dream.

But on the other hand, it's part of SC's attraction, the "what if" aspect, jets being another aspect of it. Could the V1/V2 program have played a significant role had Germany concentrated on that from Day 1 ? Debateable. Certainly their tactical effect in the game is ahistorical.

The same issue applies to customized amphib / para units for Allies only, German blitz power (and offsetting amphibious weakness) and so on. Overall, I can certainly live with the design decision to have generic units and weapons development shared by all. No doubt, it detracts from the realism. But if the game designers had gone overboard with it (such as limited mobility for German infantry to reflect the historical lack of motor transport, or the mighty power of US industry at max capacity), we could have a game with ultimate Allied victory as a foregone conclusion.

[ January 27, 2003, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Steve C ]

[CalifVol]

There are many good points made in this thread. I think part of the answer of why some of them haven't been done lays in the fact that its a game not a simulator. The game has a requirement to invade the US for the Axis to win. That just doesn't work well from a simulator aspect. If its going to be a simulation then there is a massive delay for the Axis to come up with the needed amphibous navy to conduct such an operation. The rules now allow for a rapid and smooth game to do an item that would have been difficult to take place in 1947 assuming the Nazis had beat the USSR in 1942. Even in that scenario there's years delay as the Nazi war machine has to gear up for a cross Atlantic operation. Yea, this re-tooling could be simulated but somehow sitting and waiting turn after turn as the Axis player says "I am re-tooling my industry and re-configuring my strategic force" doesn't make for too much fun. The current amphibious rules allow for a FAST game abliet at the expense of reality.

So then, how does the game get to the valid points brought up in this thread and still allow for a fun fast game? Maybe part of the answer is in the victory conditions. If the Axis doesn't need to invade the US to win then restraints on the Axis or advantages to the Allies for amphibious operations can be applied without a big impact on how the game ends for the succesful Axis player.

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by Steve C:

...Overall, I can certainly live with the design decision to have generic units and weapons development shared by all. No doubt, it detracts from the realism....

I think one of the earlier reasons/ideas for dumping USA/Brit rockets and substituting with Amphib/Para was the fact, (at least in the initial versions of SC, if I remember correctly) was that rockets could not transport. If the USA/Brits bought rockets, the unit was stuck in the country where it was purchased.( this may have been fixed in later patch.)

Sorry, I don't remember original author/thread for rocket discussion.

Ken

[Shaka of Carthage]

Since so may replies jump all over the place, I apologize for not specifing whom made the comment that I am respond to.

"limited access to finite quantites of specilized craft" Very true statement, though I don't think that having a unit represent this is the solution. You still would run into the problem that if you had the MPP's, you could purchase it.

"tanks could not be landed unless they were amphib adapted, which few were during the war". That is not quite correct. While there were specific exceptions (mainly for experimental use), tanks needed special equipment to allow them to cross rivers. Standard tanks could be and where unloaded using Landing Ship Tanks (LST's) on beaches. Combat Engineers usually had to build a road to get them from the beach to tank friendly terrain.

As was pointed out, you need to make a distinction between the two naval transport ships, those used for transports between ports (merchant ships, luxury liners, etc) and though designed specifically for amphib invasions.

SC method of paying for transports is more of you "renting" the transports, not building them. Without forcing players to have to invest in Merchant Marine, you could in SC limit the amount of units that had the ability to transport at any one time. That way the US and UK could have more units able to transport than Germany could.

"troops that landed and establish the beachead were marines" Not true. Conventional infantry, as long as they were amphib trained (US Army) OR were spearheaded by marines (most European nations) established the beachead. Even today, most of the troops that are called "marine", are really no more than naval infantry and are incapable of conducting amphib operations. Thats why making a "Marine Transport Fleet" is not necessary.

I don't understand the request for having a "gun fleet" unit. Is this a ground or a naval unit?

Destroyers request, just points out that the SC naval is weak from a realism standpoint, though it is playable. Maybe it would be just easier for everyone if the "Cruiser" unit was called "ASW ships" and the "Battleship" unit was called "Surface Warships". The units in SC are an abstraction, not an actual representation of what they are named.

Air Fleets as an abstraction also has to be taken with a grain of salt. The Air units do damage out of proportion to there actual functions.

Matter of fact, it would be nice if someone just made a topic to address a specific item.

Request to include new weapons... I would like to see a topic made about this, because I am curious what weapons people feel are lacking at the level that SC is.

Why should we have HQ's and not some other quality units? Now that is a statement I don't understand.

Increasing the transport costs doesn't solve the problem that someone mentioned earlier, that Germany relative to US and UK did not have the same transport ability. Increased costs, especially when tied to different sea zones, complicates without solving the base problem.

The key to a good design is to include the feature, but have it limited for the same reasons that it was historically, not by having speciality rules.

"But if the game designers had gone overboard with it (... ...) we could have a game with the Allied victory as a forgone conclusion". Maybe I am missing something or I misread this. The beauty of SC and WWII is that the outcome was not a forgone conclusion. Thats why the what if's are important. It makes it replayable. Since there are no distinctions between nationality types, German infantry being slower than Britsh or US infantry doesn't matter. The difference between a mechanized unit and non-mechanized unit is important. Otherwise there is no concept of blitzkrieg.

Game has a requirement for the Axis to invade the US to win. Don't think so.

The game can still be playable, without sacrificing realism. You just have to make sure that in the effort for realism you don't make it complicated.

Thanks,

Barry

[ January 27, 2003, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[CalifVol]

"Game has a requirement for the Axis to invade the US to win. Don't think so."

Then explain why the game would not end when I had over run all of Europe and Canada?

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by CalifVol:

"Game has a requirement for the Axis to invade the US to win. Don't think so."

Then explain why the game would not end when I had over run all of Europe and Canada?

I think the latest patch SC v1.06 has "Stalemate victory conditions" that allow an Axis win without taking USA(or England). I believe in play against the AI, it will not surrender until all major powers are taken. Of course, in play against a human, he would normally concede.

But I am no Expert. Many here know the ways and rules much better than I.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Steve C]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

Since so may replies jump all over the place, I apologize for not specifing whom made the comment that I am respond to.

"But if the game designers had gone overboard with it (... ...) we could have a game with the Allied victory as a forgone conclusion". Maybe I am missing something or I misread this. The beauty of SC and WWII is that the outcome was not a forgone conclusion. Thats why the what if's are important. It makes it replayable. Since there are no distinctions between nationality types, German infantry being slower than Britsh or US infantry doesn't matter. The difference between a mechanized unit and non-mechanized unit is important. Otherwise there is no concept of blitzkrieg.

Thanks,

Barry

Hehe, you're right, this thread is all over the place, but it's all good.

Well, I don't think we entirely disagree on my point. And you may well be right that WW2 was not the forgone conclusion that it may seem in hindsight. I'm sure that in mid-1941, it was Japan and Germany who thought their victories would be a foregone conclusion. Nevertheless, there's no denying that in a war for the long haul, the Axis was at a disadvantage from the standpoint of manpower and industrial potential.

I'm an SC rookie, so forgive me if my comments are unqualified. But I get the impression that the SC is leveled out relative to the historical strengths and weaknesses of the combatants in the interests of balanced gameplay. Take the Italians, for example. In my first game playing the Axis, I am finding them to be a huge help. Whereas historically, it's hard to see them as anything other than the weak sister of the Axis. They needed to be bailed out by the Germans at almost every turn. Yet in the game, they have helped me stop an Allied Overlord attempt cold in '42, crush partisans in Yugoslavia, conquer Greece, Iraq and soon to overrun Turkey.

So in my opinion, certain compromises had to be made in the interests of compelling gameplay, be it the units themselves or the relative strengths of the powers. And it all works, very well indeed.

[SeaWolf_48]

I like Mr Carthage's suggestion about having another option on the pulldown bar for Amphibious assult. This should only be used by nations that develop this technology in the research option.

I've found reports on the effort for industry by all the belligerents during WW2. If there is intrest I will produce a spreadsheet showing yearly outputs.

USA 1941-45 156 Bil Dollars

UK 1939-45 55 Bil Dollars

USSR 1941-45 65 Bil Dollars

3rd Reich 1939-45 67 Bil Dollars

Italy 1940-43 5 Bil Dollars

As you can see the American MPP's in SC are less than Britain, and should be almost three times that of Britain. Also Germany is less than half of the USA GNP for war.

[JerseyJohn]

Kenfdoroff

About the only physical preparations Germany made for Sea Lion was to gather river barges, place large aircraft engines aft, and alter the front into a pair of gates opening to left and right. They were slow as hell, extremely noisy and hardly sea worthy enough to cross the English Channel. On the negative side they were needed in their real capacity as river barges!

When Sea Lion didn't come off they were sent, prsumably by rail or perhaps through a canal/river network, to the Black Sea where they put to more productive use in Kerch Straights and later in the evacuation of the Crimea.

I don't know how many of these contraptions were produced, but Sea Lion plans called for the lifting of approximately two armies. Naturally it was all hypothetical with the army blaming the navy and the navy blaming the airforce. That's teamwork for you!

The Amphib/Para replacment for Allied Rocket research is a good one. Why not give the Axis the same option in place of Sonar ?

[ January 28, 2003, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Steve C

"that in a war for the long haul, the Axis was at a disadvantage from the standpoint of manpower and industrial capacity". Correct. That is why the conquest of Russia, no later than 1942, is critical. If that historically had happened, the war would have been over. Now this is where the "what if" potential of a future SC (ie SCII) would shine. 1942 US, facing Japan and Germany. Germany, cannot project its strength, so does it build a blue water navy or does it just support Japan? Does the US try and liberate Russia, the "finlandized" UK? How does it placate its own population, mostly old world immigrants who don't want their sons dying "over there".

Sea_Wolf48

Interesting point, about having to "research" amphib as a tech. There was no amphib ability in 1939. Excellent point you made. Gives me an excuse to research (and buy some more source material) how amphib ships (and there ability) could be broken down into five levels.

If you could, would you shoot me a copy of what your source material is for the industrial numbers? I've got a few books and some internet sources, so am always looking for new info. I would also like to use your numbers (depending on the source) for comparison purposes in the Economic Analysis I am doing. I know that the US produced 50% of the world GNP, by the end of the war.

Thanks,

Barry

[Shaka of Carthage]

I'm throwing these numbers out, because somewhere, someone asked for them. Besides, rather do this then actually do something productive at work.

Merchant Shipping 1939

(in million tons)

UK........ almost 18

USA....... little less than 9

Japan..... 5

Norway.... little more than 4

Germany... almost 4

Italy..... 3

France.... 2.5 to 2.75

Holland... 2.5 to 2.7 (slightly lower than France)

Holland... little better than 2.5

Greece.... 1.75 to 2

Russia.... 1

Sweden.... 1

The German figured they could win the sea war by waging a "tonnage" war. The concept here is that you sink the enemy merchant ships, not so much because of what they are carrying, rather because of the future loss of what they could have carried. If you could sink them faster than they could build them, you won. And they almost where able to economically "starve" the UK. Germany sunk abou 23 million tons. Contrast this to the Japanese, who used there submarines to hunt capital ships. They sunk 1 million tons.

By year, it worked out like this:

1939...... sunk 755,000 .... built 377,000

1940...... sunk 3,491,000 .... built 872,750

1941...... sunk 4,329,000 .... built 1,924,000

so far, that is a net loss of almost 5.5 million tons. Major problem... since the military has major requirements to move troops and supplies back and forth as well. So not too far of as I mention somwhere else, that the UK is building Merchant ships like crazy, and wouldn't slow down until the US came in.

1942...... sunk 7,790,000 .... built 6,230,000

Guess where most of these losses came from? The Americans. While the Germans prior to this where suppossed to leave the American ships alone, now they were given free reign. Also, the Americans did not use the convoy system, didn't blackout the east coast cities, etc. I believe the Germans considered this a "Happy time". If it wasn't for the economic power of the US, the UK probably would have been near to breaking.

1943 .... sunk 3,220,000 .... built 5,635,000

In addition to the US production, I believe around know was the time that the enigma code was broken. So know, the allies knew where the U-boats where. US also started to do convoy's, as well as there being ships available that had air cover (merchant carriers, escort aircraft carriers). And these newly available aircraft and ships had radar and sonar. No more Happy Time.

1944 .... sunk 1,046,000 .... built 1,987,000

1945 .... sunk 438,800 .... built 834,000

Thats it. The end is here. But so is the end of the UK Empire. Welcome to Pax Americana.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Great info. I thought Norway's merchant fleet was a little larger but it's easy to see how their addition in 1940 came at exactly the right time. Part of the reason for the huge American merchant losses in 1942 was Operation Torch , which tied up a lot of Atlantic destroyers during the second half of '42.

[ February 01, 2003, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]