Amphibious assault – MAJOR ISSUE

[vveedd]

A few people already have mentioned this, I already have mentioned this but after I finished my first game as Allies this amphibious raids require a single post. It looks to me that these raids are becoming a major issue in SC2 like too many air fleets was in SC1. With this rules players can make raids with no danger from enemy air or naval, can make raids practically from any ports on the map and after lending in the same turn they can walk thru half country and attack. I really don’t know why Eisenhower and Hitler wanted clear sky from enemy planes for D-day and Sea Lion, why Hitler admirals have said that the major obstacle for Sea Lion was British navy and so on. Amphibious raids are too much unrealistic! To be more realistic I strongly recommended for future patch this: decrease amphibious transports movement to half, at least. In that way players will make raids from closest ports (All sea invasions in WWII except US attack on north Africa was made from closest ports) and if they want to make invasions from distant ports they must take risk of decreasing supply and taking damage from enemy air and naval. Also when units landed they should not have any more action points. They need a little time for reorganization. This sounds much more realistic to me. Hubert?

[Night]

agreed.

[Blashy]

This is getting redundant.

1- You don't like the range, change it in the editor, no patch needed.

2-And you do loose readiness and morale if you are in tranports for extended periods.

3- Its not an issue, the only reason it is an issue at this time is because you keep playing the AI which we have all figured out needs work.

Stop playing the AI and use your "godly" amphibious tactic vs. an SC veteran who knows how to defend vs. amphibious invasions, I sure do, Dave does, pzgdr does and so does my friend. Try it vs. Hellraiser or Codename Condor, they seem to have a good grasp of the game already.

[Blackhorse]

Considering that the overwhelming majority of us are neither SC2 veterans nor going to play against one any time soon, I think the issue is legitimate.

Why should we have to use the editor to change a parameter in one of the game's basic gameplay features?

[Blashy]

Because the editor is your "options" button for SC2.

Because it is NOT an issue.

Because if I think the game should have motorization level 5 available, I would go in the editor and change it myself, not ask Hubert everytime I want something "I feel" is not correct about how the game is played. Unless it is a bug or issue that can not be changed in the editor.

The amphibious transport is not the issue, the issue is the AI needs to be worked on to properly counter act such tactics.

I'm sure you could easily prevent a successfull invasion of UK if someone tried it against you, right?

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Blackhorse:

Why should we have to use the editor to change a parameter in one of the game's basic gameplay features?

You don't have to change it,

Or anything else, though,

You could.

Which is different

Than 99 % + of the games

Currently out there, eh? :cool:

But,

IF the "default '39 game" REMAINS as is,

At least, some parts yer concerned about,

For good and sufficient reason,

And/or,

Until decided O/W,

And/or,

Until tested,

Well,

Wouldn't you first want to TRY out

A feature that is presumed not

So hot?

**[... has anyone is worried over this,

actually changed the numbers, for WHATEVER,

and then TRIED it? Or played it out TCP

Or PBEM... so to have SOLID

rationales for suggestions... don't NEED to,

I appreciate, but some suppose things

SHOULD be changed BEFORE considering ALL

the consequences, is all I'm saying ]

Just to make surely sure?

That it

THEN :eek:

Doesn't cause odd repercussions

In the over-all schematic,

IE,

Perhaps,

Due to lack of THOROUGH testing

Yer proposal would side-kick something else

Out of whack?

Is all I myself ask.

_____________________________

I have "edited" this post 7 times now,

Since, similar to above,

One needs to CONSTANTLY

Check,

And re-check things.

Make certain, as can be,

We are considering ALL that we can.

At the moment.

And given new information.

Etc.

Else,

We get insufficient evidence.

[ April 15, 2006, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[Baron]

Just where in the editor do you modify movement of amphibious transports?

[Desert Dave]

Before vveedd moved the thread dealing

With this topic,

I had posted:

click on

1) File -> Open

2) '39 Fall Weiss

3) Campaign

4) Edit Country Data

5) Edit Combat Target Data

6) EACH Nation in the game, one by one

7) Amphibious transport

8) Action Points

9) Up-down arrow: change to 4 or 5 or whatever you would prefer.

Any problems, Baron, say so.

[Hubert Cater]

Not to worry guys, I'll be reviewing this, and many other things and possibly making a change here and there

[Desert Dave]

Me, awhile back:

But,

IF the "default '39 game" REMAINS as is,

At least, some parts yer concerned about,

For good and sufficient reason,

And/or,

Until decided O/W,

And/or,

Until tested,

Hubert, taking time from his time off:

Not to worry guys, I'll be reviewing this, and many other things and possibly making a change here and there

See?

Good things CAN come from making

Your wishes known.

And/or when Game Designer

Has "decided O/W,"

Indicating

Conclusively!

He has heard the concerns,

Once again!

As ever it was! :cool:

[Edwin P.]

Interesting post, though I don't find the Amphibious units to be a problem. Why?

a. Vulnerability to Long Range Air

b. If your opponent controls the seas you have a problem.

c. Decreasing readiness.

d. Most of All - unless you take a city - your units will be out of supply the following turn.

e. Amphibious Transports cost more MPPs. (if you want to reduce these why not just double the cost)

f. Forces Axis to guard his cities, given the shortage of units that presents him with interesting choices.

The ability of amphibious units to make quick raids forces the Axis to garrison vulnerable cities or maintain a screen of naval units nearby. In Sc1 I could leave Brest unguarded, watched only by an bomber with LR air, knowing that I would have time to move or operate a unit in. Now I must guard this city with a unit all the time and devote a number of units to garrison duty when playing HVH.

The problem is that the Allied AI does not know how to use this to threaten cities left unguarded by the Axis nor does it know how or which cities to guard. Nor does the Axis AI know how to counter an amphibious invasion or which cities need to be guarded.

AI TIP: Have Allied AI Amphibious Assualt Brest and that northern City in Norway if not guarded by Axis.

Before making adjustments we need to get more experience with the game in HvAI and HvH format and improve the AI. If this continues to be a problem then make the adjustment, but currently; and this may change, I agree with Blashy that the system is well balanced as is for HvH play, especially if the Axis has a reserve waiting out of sight to deal with them.

PS: The USA made a number of rather long range amphbious invasions in the Pacific.

[Dulak]

Blashy you keep implying to stop playing the AI if we want to play and enjoy the game ... the thing is most people that buy this game will be playing the AI mainly.

I would venture to say at least 75% of all games played are vs the AI. So most people want a competent AI; and while its true there is a editor that we can 'attempt' to bring the AI to a more challenging level; most of us were hoping the game would already be challenging out of the box and only need some minor tweeks.

Dont get me wrong; I really like the game so far from what I have seen and my hat is off to Hubert for bringing it to us.

Hopefully the AI will get buffed to a point where it would be challenging to play vs. I'm interested in tweeking the AI but I plan on waiting till some of the major bugs are addressed first (ie like the US not playing much of a role).

[Blashy]

I never stated to stop playing the AI, I am just stating a fact that the known flaws are being worked on as we all write on these forums.

It's just that IMHO right now judging the game mechanics based on the AI will not result in the best evaluation because we've discovered some flaws, a big one being that USA does not get into the war.

I'm a big supporter of a competant AI myself as I like to play the AI as well.

Reading AAR (After Action Reports) from the likes of Codename Condor and Hellraiser do alot to display the games capabilities. I'm hoping more AAR start poping up soon, it will reveal more about the game.

[santabear]

I have some "issues" with SC2 graphics, but as someone who has played a LOT of SC1 against AI, I have to say that I agree with Blashy, et. al. on this point.

I've only played the demo so far, so I haven't tried the editor, but I'm sure that rather than try to balance a game vs. AI just using the entry system (or via hard patches), I would think of making changes in the editor to make the game more AI friendly.

Part of playing SC well is learning the GAME. It takes some time, but once you get the hang of it some of these sorts of things will make more sense, I think.

If you try the amphibious thing vs. someone who knows what they're doing, you should expect that on the turn you invade a counterattacking force will be operated into some town just out of spotting range. On the next turn (when the invading troops are out of supply) they're going to get fairly well beaten up.

The real AI problem is that a human player can tempt AI into trying invasions and then whomping up on him, not the other way around. (Hide counterattacking units, have naval or air units hiding to destroy the transports, etc.)

Finally, the concept behind the editor in this game is fantastic. "Realism" in a "what if" historical game is in the mind of the player. We can all make the game feel more "realistic," depending on how each of us interprets WWII. It really is a brilliantly conceived way of doing things.

SB

[Baron]

Desert Dave,

I appreciate the instructions. did you serve with the 7th Div.? I've had the privilege to twice now.

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Because the editor is your "options" button for SC2.

Because it is NOT an issue.

sorry Blashy strongly disagreement here. First of all the editor to change the game yourself is not always the solution. I believe most people like to play the official version without houserules etc.

2. The AI needs to learn how to deal with decrease amph. transports if it is implemented. If I change the value myself there is never going to be a patch

3. Whats the purpose of amphib tansports whcih can move all over the place

4. The AI right now is unable to defend it

5. I predict and I will betit will be although an issue for human vs. human. Because it is already an issue after the few games played human vs human.

6. The almighty editor is not always the solution for things mentioned here Blashy :

- You don´t like the AI: write yourself some scripts

- You thinkt the map looks bad: Draw yourself one

etc. etc.

The editor is great but I bet 80% of the players don´t want and will never touch it.

The point is to kill every discussion with the argument "You can change it with the editor" perhaps you can explain why you think:

a. The game is better off as it is with long range amphib transports.

b. How do you defend even as a human against it?

If you discussed this topic in the beta forum fine please post the content here.

[ April 16, 2006, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

[Blashy]

It is simply not an issue for me.

Defending against it is easy, have you seen the size of the RN? You can have the ships placed well enough to prevent a successfull landing, sure he will land some units, then you'll be all smiles when USA and USSR start going up and eventually join in 1940.

Lets say he takes all of UK, the Govt moves to Egypt. So now he has to use 3 troops minimum to man the Island, gets 30mpps from the whole Island, no plunder and UK is building up in Egypt. Still game over for Germany.

And it was not discussed in the beta forums by myself as I never saw it as an issue, I found out how to stop it (even invasion of USA).

My friend tried Sealion about 5 times, twice he took the Island, only once was he really successfull as I was not well prepared, he still lost the game since he had to transport back his troops and by the time they were in the East the Russians were fully entrenched and ready at their border cities, while USA was in D-Day mode 2 years early. Oh and UK was building troops in Egypt.

Amphibious transports had long range in WW2, some Pacific and North Africa had very long amphibious operations.

[Sombra]

@ Blashy . Well lets agree to disagreee right now. Perhaps later Ichange my mind but right now I would like to see that the initial range of amphib transports would be greatly reduced. We are talking here of landing whole armies in peek condition.

Even with half of action points you could reach far away shores but the readiness at least would be lower and airfleets have a chance to spot approaching transports. Besides the historic invasion spots: the invasion of Scily , Normandy , Bretagne etc. would be more attractive then other far away locations.

In two games wiht players who have already played multiplayer they are asking right now again for house rules like : No DOW on mayors first round / No neutral spotting right now it seems that this is becoming a trend it seems at the moment.

[hellraiser]

It's not just 'a trend' it makes a lot of sense:

1. No DOW+landings on majors. This is needed to prevent exploits like: UK declares war on USA, Rome gambit.

DOW+landing can be allowed but the Rome gambit forbidden (unit in Rome is not entrenched but unit in Tobruk it is at lvl 4...) and UK DOW on USA forbidden as well.

Last night Terif pointed out that DOW + landing should be restricted to the above rules so Italy cannot send all her troops in North Africa, which he considers gamey. I think it can be played this way but also Italy needs a chance to defend african positions as well - uk troops at the border 'waiting' for italian DOW?

2. The use of neutral transports as spotters -tile blockers.

This is definitely MAJOR - Sombra wanted to see this approach and used US transports to block tiles near England so my baltic fleet couldn't arrive to the rescue of some naval units near Brest. This is 100% GAMEY, no matter what any beta tester will tell me. Yes you can dow USA and sink the transports but is this really the way to play the game? To be forced to DOW a country to prevent unrealistic gamey moves?

Possible other exploits - neutral Italy use its fleet to block the passage near Crete or the Gibraltar port, making it impossible for the allies to sail thru the Med. Only possbile way is thru the Suez loop. GAMEY 100%.

Allies can DOW Italy and try to sink the ships,of course, but are the diplomatic penalties worth it?

Again we use a diplomatic action to counter a gamey move?

A possible solution for these exploits would be to write some diplomatic events to counter these moves - Italy blocks passage near Crete ? Ok, Greece's readiness goes up a lot, possibly join , USA protests, USSR is concerned...

Allies use neutral transports to spot (moving them away at a certain distance from their homeland) or block tiles? USSR readiness dramatically decreases and possbily some minors shift towards Axis.

Either change this or make it absolutely not worth the move/effort for the Allies/Axis.

Just my 2c

[vveedd]

Hellraiser, as well-known SC player what do you think about my suggestions how to solve this issues? My suggestions are:

Originally posted by hellraiser:

It's not just 'a trend' it makes a lot of sense:

1. No DOW+landings on majors. This is needed to prevent exploits like: UK declares war on USA, Rome gambit.

DOW+landing can be allowed but the Rome gambit forbidden (unit in Rome is not entrenched but unit in Tobruk it is at lvl 4...) and UK DOW on USA forbidden as well.

Last night Terif pointed out that DOW + landing should be restricted to the above rules so Italy cannot send all her troops in North Africa, which he considers gamey. I think it can be played this way but also Italy needs a chance to defend african positions as well - uk troops at the border 'waiting' for italian DOW?

Amphibious transports with half action points and no moving after they land and ADD TERRITORIAL SEA TILES.

For DOW to friendly major I didn’t know that this is possible so far. To my opinion this is a BUG.

Originally posted by hellraiser:

2. The use of neutral transports as spotters -tile blockers.

This is definitely MAJOR - Sombra wanted to see this approach and used US transports to block tiles near England so my baltic fleet couldn't arrive to the rescue of some naval units near Brest. This is 100% GAMEY, no matter what any beta tester will tell me. Yes you can dow USA and sink the transports but is this really the way to play the game? To be forced to DOW a country to prevent unrealistic gamey moves?

Possible other exploits - neutral Italy use its fleet to block the passage near Crete or the Gibraltar port, making it impossible for the allies to sail thru the Med. Only possbile way is thru the Suez loop. GAMEY 100%.

Allies can DOW Italy and try to sink the ships,of course, but are the diplomatic penalties worth it?

Again we use a diplomatic action to counter a gamey move?

Naval units from neutral major countries should not be enabling to move outside territorial sea tiles OR they can be moved only from friendly ports to ports. OR other units can go thru it or if you want to go exactly in occupied tiles with neutral units this units will move automatically for one or few tiles.

I’ll appreciate your opinion.

And Blashy, just wanted to say – editor should be for making new scenarios and maps not for correcting some wrong things like this in default scenarions.

[Terif]

Can only agree with Hellraiser:

As long as Rome and USA are not fixed, it will be required to forbid at least Rome gambit and DoW at USA by Allies. Hubert already mentioned that DoW possibility of friendly majors will be removed by a patch. Nevertheless Rome also needs to be at entrenchment 6 before this house rule can be removed.

Neutral spotters/blockers are also a big problem and in no way outweight by the in deed very small transport costs or the possibility to do suicide by e.g. as Axis Dowing USA several years earlier before they would be at war and give them full ressources .

So for my next games I will presumably use the following house rules to avoid these exploits:

1. no Allied Dow at USA allowed and Rome gambit forbidden (i.e. Allies DoW Italy and attack Rome in the first turn)

2. Italy, USA and USSR not allowed to move ships or transports away from its coast before beeing at war. Exception: Italian transports and ships from port to port.

[pzgndr]

1. no Allied Dow at USA allowed and Rome gambit forbidden (i.e. Allies DoW Italy and attack Rome in the first turn)

2. Italy, USA and USSR not allowed to move ships or transports away from its coast before beeing at war. Exception: Italian transports and ships from port to port.

#1 is already fixed in the updated demo; i.e., no DOWs on friendly majors. Entrenching Rome to pretty much prevent a 1-round knockout should be sufficient. I don't think we want to restrict surprise amphibious invasions completely, especially since minor neutrals like Italy and USSR are now free to move about and can take preventative measures, or fail to do so.

FWIW, I've been concerned about #2 since the start and recommended the same thing, restricting neutral naval units to controlled ports only. We created some event script penalties for Russian fleet movements in the Baltic and considered some other scripting for Italian and US fleets, but still the gaminess remains. This issue needs to be resolved.

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by hellraiser:

2. The use of neutral transports as spotters -tile blockers.

This is definitely MAJOR - Sombra wanted to see this approach and used US transports to block tiles near England so my baltic fleet couldn't arrive to the rescue of some naval units near Brest. This is 100% GAMEY....

Possible other exploits - neutral Italy use its fleet to block the passage near Crete or the Gibraltar port, making it impossible for the allies to sail thru the Med....

A possible solution for these exploits would be to write some diplomatic events to counter these moves - Italy blocks passage near Crete ? Ok, Greece's readiness goes up a lot, possibly join , USA protests, USSR is concerned...

Allies use neutral transports to spot (moving them away at a certain distance from their homeland) or block tiles? USSR readiness dramatically decreases and possbily some minors shift towards Axis.

Either change this or make it absolutely not worth the move/effort for the Allies/Axis.

Excellent points.

There should be diplomatic penalties;

USA moves transports or naval units far from shore then USA or Russian war readiness declines! (Why? Russia expects that the arrival of USA Naval forces in Europe means that the USA will soon declare war on Germany. Americans protest overseas deployment of their naval forces in a war zone.) Of course to effect this the Activation script will have to be enhanced for country specific units activation.

and/or

Naval units should be allowed to pass through Naval Units of Neutral Nations without stopping.

and/or

Build Limit for Neutral Nation Transports is one ( a variable set in the editor) until they are at war.

[ April 18, 2006, 06:42 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Blashy]

My thoughts, what Pzgdr states.

Just make the unit on Rome level 6 entrenched, but don't prevent amphibs and DoW on same turn.

USA is fixed, I said before this I found out sometime ago but forgot to mention it in beta, my bad.

The transports/ships moving about as neutrals, as I said I can manage to work around it, but the simplest solution is just to make them unmovable until 90% activation.

[LampCord]

I think the fundamental problem with amphibious invasions is that air power doesn't have an oportunity to interdict during the course of one turn. Therefore, allied units invading accross the channel for example, have no fear of German planes picking them appart as they cross.

I can think of a couple of solutions:

1) Allow air units to 'intercept' amphibious units as soon as they come into view. You could also allow friendly air units to escort.

or,

2) Force amphibious units to have to wait one turn on the coast before they can unload. What this would do would be to allow a reaction by the invaded country. Any air or naval could attack these units while the sit off the coast, just like they would in real life.

What this would do would force air and naval superiority before an invasion. Otherwise, you would take horrific casualties just off the coast of your target country.

I don't believe either of these things could be changed in the editor but I could be wrong.