Amphibious assault

[Korut Zelva]

They are too easy to pull, especially for the axis player

Maybe the cost of transports could be higher for the axis. Since their pool for barge and crew to handle them was smaller so if they want get into heavy transport action, it's going to cost them.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Agree they are too easy for the Axis.

But lets go all the way...

Amphib Assaults only by Corps, not Armies or Tank units.

Restrict the ability so they can only be conducted in the same turn the Amphib unit is created.

Seperate Amphib from Transports... and only allow units that are Transported to go from Port to Port.

Lastly, restrict the range of an Amphib unit.

[Edwin P.]

"Restrict the ability so they can only be conducted in the same turn the Amphib unit is created."

This would make it impossible to recreate Operation Torch - the Allied Invasion of Vichy Algeria or any other invasion more than one turn away from a port. With this rule the US could have never retaken the Pacific from the Japanese. Amphibious units could not ship out from Manchester England to invade Norway.

"Seperate Amphib from Transports... and only allow units that are Transported to go from Port to Port."

This feature is included in SC2.

In SC2 the longer a unit is at sea the weaker it becomes.

[ January 30, 2005, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

"Impossible to recreate Operation Torch"...

Gibralter.

"US could never have retaken Pacific from the Japanese"...

This is something that depends on the scale. However, assuming everything is kept relative to each other, it would force you to "island hop".

"Manchester England to invade Norway" ...

The Scottish Port.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka,

Restricting the range is on shaky ground. I agree with Edwin here.

Historically,

-- Operation Torch went directly from the Western Hemisphere to North Africa.

-- The Guadalcanal Operation also sailed from the Western Hemisphere to the Invasion site. Or did they stop off in New Zealand? I'm not sure, but even New Zealand would have been a long haul!

By limiting the range, you end up ruling out things like an American counterinvasion of the UK if it falls to Germany.

[Edwin P.]

"Restrict the ability so they can only be conducted in the same turn the Amphib unit is created."

"Gibraltar"

- This would only support a one unit invasion.

"The Scottish Port"

- This would only support a one unit invasion and knowing that there is only one location where an invasion can come from would allow the Axis to deploy a wall of submarines to stop it.

[AZGungHo]

John,They did stop in New Zealand, but either way it's a long way. Look at how far troops were moved for the invasion of Okinawa - from Guadalcanal, Guam, and I believe some even came from Pearl Harbor!

Distance limits aren't good - but clearly many of the others discussed here will be as right now it's just too easy.

It's going to be sooooo fun to check all this out when we finally get our hands on SC2 isn't it>

[JerseyJohn]

AZGungHo

Thanks for clarifying that, guess it would be something like 1,000 miles from New Zealand to Guadalcanal, but I'm only guessing on that. As we've both said, regardless of the exact distance it's a long way for an invasion force to travel!

One way of looking at it is while Torch and Guadalcanal traversed huge ocean distances, the Normandy Invasion landed a lot more troops and was reinforced and resupplied much more quickly than those other operations. Also, of course, it had the advantage of ground based air support from England.

I think whatever system is ultimately adapted in SC2 it will need to be flexible.

[norvandave]

Perhaps restricting range would work if you could "Purchase" amphibs that would be used on a once only basis (kind of an abstraction). Cost could vary depending on the range of the amphib op you wanted to pull off. I would wager that it must have cost a lot more to undergo a longer range amphib.

[JerseyJohn]

norvandave

An excellent idea.

It's similar to bombing raids; a long range mission would require more fuel at the expense of the bombload. A long range invasion would require more ship space used for supplies rather than troops.

Increased expense could represent this very well, I think, in abstract terms meaning the greater expense is for extra shipping and additional supplies.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Agree that restricting the range is not a correct representation of what is happening.

But something needs to be done to prevent transport ships from moving half way around the world, then "poof", becoming an Amphib Assault force. Thats not the way it worked.

And while SC2 will "weaken" a force, the longer it stays at sea, its not a satisfactory abstraction.

[JerseyJohn]

I'm not sure of the actual strengths, but I think the very long operations only landed small numbers of troops. The transports then needed to return for more troops and supplies.

Guadalcanal landed a single division, I believe. Torch landed a division at each of three locations in Morocco and Algeria. It took so much time to move them, as a strong corps with adequate supplies to the Tunisian border that Germany was able in the interim to build a small army to oppose them.

By contrast, Operation Overlord moved four divisions across the channel in a single day and quickly built their strength and reforced them to the reasonable maximum for the Normandy bottleneck they were confined in prior to the breakout at St Lo.

So, I think it needs to be a combination by which distance travelled reduces both the size and supply level of the force being landed.

[Edwin P.]

In Sc2 you will have transports that can only land at ports and much more expensive amphibious assualt units.

It would be helpgful to this forum if someone could comment on the relative costs of the two units - ie, will Amphibious units cost 20%, 50% or 100% more than transported units.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

How does that relate to invasions being conducted thousands of miles away from their home base and how this should be reflected in the game?

It isn't only a matter of cost, it's also a matter of how distances travelled will affect invasions -- the size of the force that can be offloaded, it's effectiveness and supply level.

[Edwin P.]

First, the cost will limit the number of amphibious units available. In SC1 you can build a lot of Ampbibious Transports, in SC2 the cost will limit the number. This reflects, in some degree, the lmitations associated with waging a long or short range amphibious invasion and limits the size of the force that can be offloaded.

Additionaly, the effectivenesss of a long range invasion is reduced in Sc2 by the effects of being at sea for a longer period.

Its just really hard to comment on this area without knowing the amount of degradation that HC envisions for amphibious units at sea for a period of time and the relative cost of those units. If a land units loses 25% of its readiness per turn at sea then many of the points raised above are moot.

A long range invasion is doable, but as you said early the problem is the follow through with reinforcements.

[JerseyJohn]

Agreed. We don't have enough information on this from Hubert to discuss it any further than we have.

In the historical Operation Torch, so many destroyers were diverted to protect the operation that the U-boats gorged themselves on the very lightly protected convoys.

The months coinciding with the landings and their immediate reinforcement and buildup were the worst of the war for the Allies in terms of Atlantic shipping. I hope this too will be reflected. In other words, that there will be some factor to reflect escorts and destroyers in terms of an overall pool; and their distribution to various tasks.

[Edwin P.]

Excellent point regarding Operation Torch. The problem as i see it is that Allied players will only feel a need to escort their transports if the Axis field a submarine force and wage a Battle for the Atlantic.

[JerseyJohn]

Thanks Edwin and a great point on your part. If the Battle of the Atlantic is more true to life in SC2 it will cause the seaborne invading player, usually the Allies, to give more consideration to what he's protecting with his destroyers.

As I understand it, in SC2 there will be an actual destroyer unit. From there it becomes a matter of how they're disperssed.

Unfortunately we don't, or at least I don't, know how the convoys themselves will be set up. There should be three routs; across the Atlantic from the Western Hemisphere, through the Mediteranean via the Suez Canal and Gibraltar, and around Africa along the African west coast. In reality, that route was used much more than the perilous Mediteranean route.

If the African route is one of the three, then it will pay for the Axis player to keep some Uboats near the West African coast. If not, it would only make real sense to keep them farther north.

It's about this point that I think a clarification from Hubert would be of real help to us.