Korut Zelva Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 To make a landing work, you gotta seize a city but taking a city is very hard since you have to spend like a whole turn right next to your target allowing the opponent to operate you to hell blocking eligible beaches Now the 2-turn landing system works to prevent sealion from being a walk in the park for axis and simulate interdiction by the royal navy. But could it be made that the allies can land the same turn they reach the shore? Or pershaps allowing me to land on a ennemy unit (outside a city) in a effort to drive him off the beaches? (and pershaps punish him from operating planes just to block my landing grrrrrrrr!) [ February 19, 2005, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: Korut Zelva ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 There's already been some discussion about the changes made for SC2 regarding transports. Here's a summary: New amphibious transports are used for invasions. Units embark on one turn, but cannot move. On the next turn, they can both move AND unload on a coastal tile. Or they can move/wait at sea for landings on later turns but unit readiness will decrease. Anyway, if the embarkations are made out of spotting range, then invasions CAN achieve some surprise. Even if you see an invasion coming, you won't necessarily be able to react and cover all possible landing sites. This should be a big improvement over the current system. Regular cheaper transports will still be available for moving units from port to port only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireball Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 I think Korut mada a got point with the possibility to atack enemy units that are standing at the coast line. Why shouldnt be that possible ? That would allow real fights for the Atlantik Wall. Fireball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 I agree that you should be able to actually fight the amphibious invasions. As a matter of fact I suggested that a long time ago on the SC1 forums. Of course it would require some kind of unit retreat rules for it to work properly, ie. the beach defender would retreat to a nearest empty hex..er..tile if it suffered X damage, and thus open the beach for the invaders. If the landing failed however, the invading unit would be destroyed or withdrawn back to the boats with horrendous casualties (the latter if the beach defender was weakened enough in the attack). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 One more thing: Being able to fight in amphibious invasions would be especially important in cases like Malta, Gibraltar or Crete, where the enemy could otherwise easily block you even with air units. Also in the case of Malta or Gibraltar where there is no escape (for ground units, planes could withdraw if there was friendly territory within their range) the defenders and invaders should fight to the death. That way invading even a one tile isle such as Malta would be possible, but extremely risque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korut Zelva Posted February 20, 2005 Author Share Posted February 20, 2005 I don't mind a air unit only malta, as I said I would be all for a landing on occupied square as long it's not a city, ressource, forteress (exeption in part because of Malta and gibraltar) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireball Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 I think it would be a huge increase of realistic gameplay if this feature would be included. I dont think if this would be hard to implement for the developers but it surely would help the game. And we wouldnt have the case anymore that i can defend the coast of France with 2 Airfleets and 8 Corps with a 1 Point Unit Strenght (After Enemy Bombardment). Thats just stupid.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 Any comments from Hubert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Sorry... set in stone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireball Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 For an non native speaker "set in stone" means .... 1. No changes planed or 2. He wont give a comment ? Fireball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Just giving you guys a hard time At the moment, and although these are all great ideas, it's not likely to change for now. Perhaps after release with additional enhancements (based on feedback such as this) but unfortunately there is still too much to focus on without worrying about going back and changing *decently* functional items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Alright, a jovial HC, reading that things are going well, meaning... not only SC2, but with the proper focus. And welcome back comrade Rambo! Now behave yourself so we won't lack your input in the future. We are better...together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts