Amphibious assault – MAJOR ISSUE

[Panzerkeil]

Yup, the long awaited patch. Then we'll have a thousand and one more things to moan about.

[Gavrok]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before but my easy fix suggestion is:

damage landing crafts take upon landing is dependant on enemy aircraft and ships numbers/ strength/supply/ proximity to landing spot minus allied ship and aircraft.

Damage should be quite severe if there is a large enemy vs allied ratio and proximity to ensure that you make a sweep of these unit types before landing......should be a 3/4 square area response max however to expose these defending ships/ aircraft units protecting the beaches to attack themselves....and simulater quick response required.

Thoughts on the above??

Still prefer next turn landing but the option above should be relatively easy to implement.

Other option is to make landing crafts land next turn but give them land zone of control to make it more difficult for defending LAND units to rush to beaches and physically stop landing just by being there

[Guest Mike]

I did a year 3 paper at Uni on the likliehood of success of Sealion - did you guys realise that the plan called for the German transports to sit off the English coast for 3 days unloading the 1st wave? In the English channel, with no ports, and the RN with bases just a few hours away for their destroyers and cruisrs....

the RN outnumbered the Kriegsmarine by about 2 or 3: in destroyer-class vesseles (incl German Torpedo boats) and about 10:1 in cruisers IIRC.

At het time the Luftwaffe had essentially ZERO anti-warship capability - no armour piercing bombs and only 1 staffel of experimental He-111 torpedo bombers - the Regia Aeronautica was better off in that respect.

Gallipoli was mostly unopposed in 1915 - there weer very few Turks on the whole of the penninsular and it was, IIRC Ataturk who rushed up reinforcements to take advantaqge of alied lethargy and establish a line.

So IMO the difference between amphibious tech would mainly be in the casualties you took on landing and how much move you get after landing, plus the ability to transport armour.

If Gallipoli is tech 0 then they launched it from Egypt, which is still some distance.

[jon_j_rambo]

Well, the rest of you rookies might take 3 to 7 days to get out of a boat, but Legend ain't.

"Charlie Don't Surf!" --- Duval

[Cheese Panzer]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Well, the rest of you rookies might take 3 to 7 days to get out of a boat, but Legend ain't.

"Charlie Don't Surf!" --- Duval

Thank you, jjr, for establishing your monumental ignorance and utter unwillingness to learn about naval matters. Now why don't you run along and let the rest of us finish our discussion?

[Timskorn]

You either surf or fight!

HC will either do something with it or he won't, either way this has become a much bigger deal than it needs to be. I mean 6 pages?

[murks]

Not that there is really a lack of contributors to this thread, but I'll throw in my 2 cents anway:

In reality, there are 3 ways of stopping an invasion:

1.) Hit them while they're on their boats

2.) Hit them the moment they set foot on the shore

3.) Let them get ashore and then strike back in force.

It is hard to adequately represent all three possibilities with their ups and downs in a TURN-BASED game.

1.) was obviously what the British would have done with an attempted Sealion. In SC1 this defence was was possible because of the 1 turn wait before going ashore. In SC2 it is currently impossible.

2.) was what Rommel intended to do to D-day.

Unfortunately, the SC1 solution to 1.), the wait, made 2.) unrealistically easy, as you could man he shores when the invasion was under way. As Rambo has pointed out on one or two occasions, if you want to stop an invasion on the beaches, you have to be there way before they are coming.

SC2 represents this kind of defence against an invasion well. If you want to do it that way, you have to man the beaches, period.

3.) is the Rundstedt solution to D-Day. There is no major difference in the feasibility of this approach between SC1 and SC2. For the british, it wasn't the preferred solution against Sealion in reality and it is in neither SC1 nor SC2.

I think few people want the problem with solution 2.) that SC1 had due to the 1 turn wait back. Some people have focused on solving No. 1.) while others are looking for ways to make invasions more difficult in general. Now No1 is a real problem almost exclusively in the one case of Sealion. Therefore, we shouldn't look for a solution that requires major changes in the basics of the game.

The most simple suggestion that have been made are the reduction of ranges and/or the removal of the possibility of immediate movement after landing. While they would make invasions more difficult in general, they don't address the specific problem of sealion in a specific way. We don't really want to insult Rambo by making invasions more difficult for the US, do we?

Therefore, I am asking myself if the solution to issue No 1.) in the sealion case couldn't be the hard implementation of a rule: german troops cannot land in Britain as long as the combined strength(definition up to debate) of the RN and RAF is below a certain threshold. This rule would make it unnecessary to find a way to give the defenders the time/move rights to use their ships and air force while at the same time not giving them the time to move their ground forces and block.

Would such a rule be hard to implement for Hubert?

The solution with intercepting air/naval units would also do the trick, but it's implementation seems to be unrealistic to me.

[murks]

the rule would be: "german troops cannot land in Britain as long as the combined strength(definition up to debate) of the RN and RAF is ABOVE a certain threshold" of course

[jon_j_rambo]

No, just put the dozen RN pieces around your property. Also, buy some corps.

Too much crying going on.

[Panzerkeil]

Let's see, the British are supposed to:

Buy corps

Deploy fleet at sea around island, naked to air fleets at the same time as they are hunting U-boats

Invest in diplomacy to stop Spain coming in

Invest in ASW

Be aggressive in North Africa

Seems like a tall order with their limited resources. Pointing out the inadequacies of the game to handle invasions realistically is crying. Trying to find a resonable means of dealing with amphibs cuts both ways: the Allies had better be able to secure the sealanes for their invasions as well.

[Guest Mike]

Come to think of it I'd make Gallipoli Tech 1 - at least they'd made some provision for getting to shore.

Tech 0 would be longboats!

[carverrt]

Amphibious operations take planning, lots of planning. And their value is not just the assault, but in a faints also (think Kuwait 1991) – no propaganda about it.

To really understand this look at the history of amphibious assaults from Gallipoli to the Falklands. All the troops got ashore, but how well were they ready to fight? Did they have all their gear? Could they communicate with supporting arms? There is a lot that goes into this. Technology not always represents the newest gizmo, it represents doctrine, training, philosophy and a command commitment to amphibious operations. If you don’t put something into it you don’t get anything out of it. It’s expensive; Special equipment/armor to protect troops going ashore, high-tech communication gear to call in naval gun fire or air missions. And think about the vertical assault directly on the beach or port. That is part of an amphibious operation also. It can cut off enemy reinforcements or seize a port. What ever it takes.

The history of amphibious operations has taken us from whaleboats to over-the-horizon assaults. From making sure your logistics officer has the right ski binding to ensuring the landing force and the air support have the same crypto fills.

You need to build a capability, to improve the chances of successes.

Amphibious landing have turned the tide and had major impact in every war since 1914. It is not something to be treated lightly.

If a WWII game is to be a historical representation of that conflict, then amphibious assault capability needs to be well thought out and accurately integrated into the game.

[Panzerkeil]

Very well articulated, Robert. In WW2 we saw the progression of the amphibious assault. The Allied landings in Norway were a shambles; raids like Dieppe were a learning tool which showed the necessity of proper support armour, the need for adequate beach reconnaisance and preparatory bombardment. Overlord demonstrated that the Allies had learned their lessons well. As you said, getting ashore was only the first stage.

Rommel was perceptive in his apprectiation of what would matter most in any Allied landing: who would win the buildup. If he could hold them on the beaches long enough to deploy his reserves he could force them back into the sea. Eisenhower knew that he must reinforce the landing quicker than the Germans could draw in reserves. Thus the aerial interdiction of the transportation network in France. There had to be the marshalling of supplies in order to sustain the buildup and drive inland. It takes much more than merely throwing some gear and supplies into a boat and dumping them ashore.

The Allies were able to load tanks offshore and ride them right onto the beaches. The Germans did not possess this ability in 1940.

[SeaMonkey]

How about limiting Amphibs to Corps size units only. Let's face it, Tank Groups and Army size units making amphibious landings is totally unrealistic.

Any other units have to be transported as normal and only through friendly ports.

You want to simulate the research to acquire amphib capability?

OK, only Corps with IW upgrade of 2 or greater are allowed to conduct amphibious landings.

That should represent a viable German commitment(planning and resources) to address a Sealion like operation and it can be incorporated immediately by a "House Rule".

It will also give the UK the necessary time to prepare and if a landing is conducted a better ability to counter it.

Also, because IW 2 level is somewhat dependent upon luck, then there will be that element of uncertainty consistent with the time period.

[vveedd]

Originally posted by Lars:

Well, having read up to this point, I have to say I'm not sure Ampih is broke. Think we need more time to play with it. Besides, sure you can take UK, but what's the point if you're probably going to lose the war because of it?

This is not the point or solution. To make Sea Lion impossible thru diplomacy effects and government movement to God knows where is stupid. Blashy mentioned this before and to my opinion this is completely wrong logic for any WWII game. The point will be to make Sea lion profitable but hard to do it.

After reading all post so far MAYBE the best solutions will be:

1.)Reduced movement for amphibious transports, no move for unloaded units AND no possibility to load tanks group and armies. This IS, as Sea Monkey said, totally unrealistic.

or

2.)Limits for amphibious transports. This solution will represent national capability for sea transport. As someone said before Germany had problem (besides RN and RAF problems) with quantity of transport boats and ships.

[Sombra]

IMHO a sealion should be hard to do but if the Allied player strapy England then a sealion should be very possible.

The problem form my point of view simply is that the RN and RAf have no "paper" in a defense against a sealion. Reducing the range of amphib transoports would change that.(My suggestion range 5) You still could do all teh orginal landings "normandy , Torch etc. but the royal Navy could spot the barges and defnd cruical spots.

Keeping the surprise and the other benefits of the current system.

I think Germany should have the chance to take out England if the allied player does mistakes (for example a 120% all out defense of Egypt)

[Lars]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Come to think of it I'd make Gallipoli Tech 1 - at least they'd made some provision for getting to shore.

Tech 0 would be longboats!

Actually, I'd rate the Vikings a little higher than that. Longboats will take you all the way up the rivers.

[Exel]

Sheesh. Just reduce the amphibious boats' range by half and (later, when there is time) add an amphibious tech that determines how many boats you are allowed to have at the same time.

There, problem solved. Really isn't that big of an issue.

[Lars]

Originally posted by vveedd:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lars:

Well, having read up to this point, I have to say I'm not sure Ampih is broke. Think we need more time to play with it. Besides, sure you can take UK, but what's the point if you're probably going to lose the war because of it?

This is not the point or solution. To make Sea Lion impossible thru diplomacy effects and government movement to God knows where is stupid. Blashy mentioned this before and to my opinion this is completely wrong logic for any WWII game. The point will be to make Sea lion profitable but hard to do it.

After reading all post so far MAYBE the best solutions will be:

1.)Reduced movement for amphibious transports, no move for unloaded units AND no possibility to load tanks group and armies. This IS, as Sea Monkey said, totally unrealistic.

or

2.)Limits for amphibious transports. This solution will represent national capability for sea transport. As someone said before Germany had problem (besides RN and RAF problems) with quantity of transport boats and ships. </font>

[Rolend]

Well it is a sticky problem with no real easy fixes, outside of Sea Lion I think the current system is not bad. So why make a huge change to the game when it really only effects one possible battle in the very early part of the war? Yea I know I was strongly advocating doing so but now that I have had time to think about it I think it would be wasted effort.

Maybe there could be a special rule put in place that restricts any landings, say before June of 41, the landing craft have to wait one turn to unload and no armor or armies, then after that the normal rules apply.

[LampCord]

Hmmm...

I just thought of an idea for this that's already implemented in the game for another unit.

What if you had to take time to 'prepare' for an Amphibious landing like you do in real life. And like the Para's do before they fly?

In otherwords, instead of right clicking on a unit and choosing amphibious transport and instantly loading into a tranny for use next turn, you right click on him and choose mode->Prepare for Amphibious assault.

The unit would then take a 'reasonable amount of time' to turn into an amphibious unit. During that time, it can't be moved or attack. If it does, it has to start over.

This would simulate the preparation time that is needed for an amphibious landing and would limit the number of units that could be in the first wave because you only have a limited number of spaces around a port in which to prepare.

The second wave couldn't start preparing untill the spaces next to the ports had been cleared by the first.

The net result of this would be:

1) Longer prep time for amphibious invasions during which troops would be off-line for other use.

2) Either smaller waves of attackers or the need to keep the first wave waiting in the water and vulnerable to air and sea while the second wave prepares.

Just a thought...

[Lars]

Another solution.

The only problem I see with it is what people really seem to want is a chance to blast them out of the water. Under your system, you can still only hit them on land.

[blackbellamy]

I think that a lot of people are forgetting the simple fact that SC2 in addition to being a game is also a simulation of the strategies and tactics used in that era.

While the system adequately simulates blitzkrieg warfare, supply, strategic airpower, and a host of other mechanics, the amphibious rules not only do not simulate reality, but actually go against every established practice and dictum of military strategy.

It is simply impossible to effect a large-scale amphibious assault in the face of superior naval and air power. It's not problematic, or difficult - it's simply impossible. No commander would greenlight such an endeavor to begin with. But SC2 allows you to embark out of range, sail past the inactive and still ships under a planeless sky, and debark on a hostile shore without fear. You could be facing two British air fleets, a strat bomber, and an almost solid wall of ships, but as long as there is just a one-space gap in the line, you can get everyone into the fight.

Like someone pointed out, it takes time to get off the ship. You don't take the landing craft directly. You take a troop ship, and then deploy into the landing craft near the shore. You have tons of support ships, supply ships, troop ships, large and small landing craft, and they're all milling about, loading, getting into formation, being readied, etc. And all during this time the enemy is free to bomb and strafe and shell and torpedo the whole kit and kaboodle.

The whole naval movement within range of the enemy airforce never seemed right to me, like how you can sail German surface ships through the English Channel with impunity as long as you begin and end outside the range of airpower. But surface ships don't break the game. It might be annoying but it's not fatal. But amphibious invasions using that same mechanic is just so totally wrong it's not funny. I can just imagine Eisenhower saying oh the Luftwaffe, they're not a problem. We figured out they can't hit our ships.

[Panzerkeil]

I agree with you on the points you make. It's simply a limitation of the game engine, nothing more. There were a couple of historical incidents which show how you cannot ignore potential operation to naval operations.

Operation Cerberus was undertaken by the Germans to move some of their surface units from Brest to Germany. I think they were Prinz Eugen and Scharnhorst, or maybe Gneisenau, can't recall offhand. Anyhow, they managed to pull off this master stroke which supremely embarrassed the British. The Germans timed it just right, sailing at the right moment to take adavantage of darkness. During the daylight hours when they were in the Channel, the Germans rotated flights of fighters over their group. The British were slow to react and the German fighters beat off their feeble attempts.

The other incident I refer to is lesser known. A few German E-boats managed to slip past the surface pickets guarding the Channel during Overlord and sank some transports. Not critical to the level of torching the operations, but nevertheless an embarrassment to the Allies.

Both incidents show how vital it was to try to control both the skies and sealanes when moving surface units. The planners of Overlord knew this, which is why one of their conditions was the destruction of the Luftwaffe in France. The Allied mastery of the U-boats was another condition. By the summer of 1943 they had managed to best the U-boats and in the year that followed took advantage of that victory to shove convoy after convoy of men and materiel to Britain. Overlord could not have happened if the Germans were able to seriously challenge the landings.

[Rolend]

Blackbellamy but that is the problem, it is hard to simulate tatical level combat in a stratigic level game. Take Normandy as an example, the Allies took what ~12 hours from the time they left port to the time the men were ashore? In SC2 each turn is one week, there is no way for the Germans to react to a 12 hour event when they have to wait a week.

I love playing turned based games but there are problems with it as no matter what time frame you use the other side stands by and watches unable to react. On large scale army actions this can be over come by things like zone of control. Maybe the answer would be to have zones of contorl for navy units and something along the lines of intercepts for air and navy units against amphib units. However that is a lot of changes for something that really only effects one aspect of the game and only stands out when dealing with amphib ops. If it was not so easy to pull off Sealion I don't think anyone would have much problems with how amphib ops are treated.

So the question remains how do you make it much harder to pull off Sealion without altering the game in a major way? I am interested to see how they do that