Amphibious assault – MAJOR ISSUE

[aesopo]

I see egos are getting bruised here on this particular issue that I raised originally.

No sweat for right now as opponents can agree on house rules regardless of forum input. It is up to Hubert finally if he sees fit to change this (hopefully) as I see it broken either playing against the AI or a human opponent.

Lets get a Terif-Bashy bashing going!

[Blashy]

Nah, I've always gotten along with Terif. Even when he thrashed me in SC. It's all good.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Blashy:

It is simply not an issue for me.

Defending against it is easy, have you seen the size of the RN?

No matter how big the RN, the problem is that you can basically ignore them. You board *8* troops out of spotting range, move them towards the UK on turn two, still out oif sight and on turn three you land them. That are *8* hostile troops on the island, no way you can defend to that with your Navy. I did Sealion in all 6 games that I played now and it always works.

As a sweet bonus, you can usually even kill most of the Navy with attacking it when it's in a port (which it seems to do often).

It's true that you don't get any plunder, but that's okay : 30MPP for 5 years is nothing to be laughed at.

And it's true that the UK builds up in Africa. But I don't really care. I wipe out it's fleet there with the Italians anyway, so when he builds up he can't go anywhere with those forces. I just guard the area with the remains of the Italian fleet and his troops are blocked in Egypt forever.

This issue should be resolved somehow, we'll see with what Mr. Crater comes up with.

[Fartknock3r]

TooJah's correct how amphibious units can just wait out of range, and strike on the next turn, the navy wont be of any use there. He's also correct about how UK's units are bottled up in Egypt. Ive never had problems with amphibious units, then again, i've only played the A.I.

[Fartknock3r]

Sorry for the double post, but couldn't a solution be that the RN could block major landing areas where the amphibious transports might land?

[Sombra]

I would like to know.

What are the advantages from implementation long range amphib. transports right now?

I can hardly see any advantage from the game perspective .

On the other hand shorter range would give:

- the RN /RAF back some of its purpose.

- "Historical" landing sites would be attractive

Norrmandy/Brest

- The amphib transports would mantain some of their flexibility to look for undefended spots

- LR invasions could still be carried out but with higher risk and less readiness of the troops

- Easy to implement

- The AI is totally "helpless" against these transports (I think it will be very hard to patch)

P.S: Yes you can defend even now against a Sealion but England need to dedicate a huge ammount of money to build up ground forces as a precaution because the RN (The traditional weapon of England) is IMHO quite useless to defend against Sealion.

This takes away many of the new opportunities for England aka invest in Diplomacy/Tech/med defense

[ April 19, 2006, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

[Terif]

@Aesopo:

Same answer as Blashy - everything´s fine.

What doesn´t mean we can´t disagree on some SC 2 points .

Concerning topic:

As TaoJah said, Royal Navy (or other enemy ships) can simply be ignored by amphib transports, as well as enemy air. That´s the key problem of the current landing system.

And as Sombra mentioned: surely it is possible to defend against Sealion. But only if England spent a lot of cash in ground units. Cash they simply need for other things. At least they will have no chance to go for a different strategy, cause if Axis player wants, he then simply will Sealion them after Egypt is conquered and plunder up to several thousand mpps - so they can even get over USA/USSR joining earlier if they attack before they join anyway.

[hellraiser]

A very simple solution - make amphib transport wait 1 turn before they can unload. Maintain the regular/amphib cost and purpose difference because it adds a new perspective to the game.

[Fire]

(Fireball not Fire)

I would say that there is a general problem between the game and reality.

Assume Player A is the attacker with amphibs and Player B is the defender in, lets say, France.

The perfect solution would be one, in which Player B could attack the amphibs with his ships and planes because that would be realistic. In SC2 this wouldnt be possible, because player B could not only use his ships and planes but could also move whole armys HQs and what not from the east of Russia to the west in this turn before the amphibs can unload....very unrealistic.

So either we devide SC2 in a game with ship/plane movement and than armies groudn movement turns (how cool would that be ) or, we live with one of the two possible but either unrealistic solutions.

1) Amphibs move and unload. Player B can only watch. Unrealistic for the planes and ships of player B

or

2) Amphibs wait one turn. Unrealistic because player B can move whoole Army Groups while Soldiers from Player A are jumping out of the landing crafts.

I like Solution 1 better but it should be patched somehow.

Fireball

[Sombra]

Originally posted by hellraiser:

A very simple solution - make amphib transport wait 1 turn before they can unload. Maintain the regular/amphib cost and purpose difference because it adds a new perspective to the game.

Even if this is more or less the system how SC1 worked please consider that we are now dealing with much less effective shorebombardement, less effective fighters (+fewer and carriers are not anymore the ultimate killer. Though we would face the problem that landing spots could be blocked again by corps.

[PeterX]

Please explain how, when England is overrun, the government gets to reconstitute itself in Egypt. I mean, Benelux doesn't reappear in Jakarta. Or France in Algiers. Sounds like a sop to Britain for the easy invasion routine.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by PeterX:

Please explain how, when England is overrun, the government gets to reconstitute itself in Egypt. I mean, Benelux doesn't reappear in Jakarta. Or France in Algiers. Sounds like a sop to Britain for the easy invasion routine.

Benelux had no ability to muster Corps sized troops in any of its colonies; Japanese soon put an end to whatever meagre Navy yet existed.

France became Vichy, and Marshal Petain agreed to remain on the sidelines, cheering for the Winner, whomever that might be.

England?

Well,

What might they eventually gain?

From the following Nations:

1) Australia

2) New Zealand

3) India

4) South Afrika

5) Free French, based in Central Africa

The "Commonwealth" or "British Empire" had multiple resources to extract, men and materials.

Since the "geographical center" of the Empire cannot be placed exactly, let's say, nearer to Burma or Singapore, due to map restrictions,

Then it has to be located on map, so that potential Empire power might be realized.

Egypt.

[hellraiser]

Tutankhamon HQ leading 7th armour?

[Desert Dave]

Tutankhamon HQ leading 7th armour?

LOL, ah, hellraiser,

Seems as tho its true,

You put up one helluva fight

No matter what!

Kind of costume yer opponent

Might be wearing, and

Scaring 'em little kids :eek:

Witless with, eh?

BTW, next time you take on

Terif the Myth,

Be sure to bring plenty

Of... Mobile Artillery,

And Doom Guns too!

[Todd Treadway]

I think that changing the action points to 3 or 4 for amphibious transports would also have the positive (and realistic) effect of encouraging amphibious operations to originate from a closer port to the target.

[SeaMonkey]

The Solution, as it was in real life, is that not every tile should be available for amphibious assault.

What we need is a beach tile that allows this type of landing.

A hard limit for each participant that caps the number of amphibs at sea simultaneously.

A higher MPP cost for amphibs, like 100.

[Todd Treadway]

As a separate matter, I think the ability for units to move after they land is too powerful. As it stands now, with amphibious transports able to move ten spaces, you can land DOUBLE the number of troops you could land in SC1. (Since in SC1 you had to start adjacent to the coast to unload.) This makes the current system even more biased towards amphibious assaults.

I liked a previous comment someone made regarding a limit to the number of amphibious transports in the water at a time. Maybe either linking this to the infrastructure tech or a new separate tech of its own?

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

A hard limit for each participant that caps the number of amphibs at sea simultaneously.

Possible Options:

1. Hard Limit

2. Soft Limit for Amphibious Units, Hard Limit for other units.

3. Hard Limit/Soft Limit tied to Infrastructure Tech.

I.e. Each Level of Infrastructure Tech increases your Amphibious Hard/Soft Limit by one or two.

Example: Germany starts with a Hard Limit for Amphibious Units of 4. At Infrastructure Tech 1 this increases to 5, At Infrastructure Tech 2 this increases to 6.

4. Action Points of Amphibious Units tied to Infrastructure Tech. Each level in Infrastructure Tech increases AP of Amphibious units.

5. Keep system as is for futher playtesting.

6. Invasion Mode for Air Units - Air units in this mode automatically attack amphibious units that move in range. This attacks may be intercepted by enemy air. Air Units assigned to this mode do not escort and do not intercept attacking Air Units.

[ April 19, 2006, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Todd Treadway]

Maybe a new amphibious landing unit? (Marines, SNLF, etc.) Could be the only unit able to use amphibious movement and have a tech level that would increase movement rate, etc.

Also, maybe an artificial harbor unit that would then allow other units to be moved in via sea transport. The harbor could provide limited supply also for several turns.

[blackbellamy]

I wanted to resurrect this thread because I just had the unpleasant experience of trying to defend against a Sea Lion that my opponent announced was coming. He actually said here it comes.

And it came, his agile amphibious transports weaving through my blockade, ignoring all air power, and there was nothing I could do. I give him a couple of knocks after his units landed, and then it was over.

So then he said want to try it again and so we did. I did way better this time, actually holding onto London for two turns longer.

So I'm thinking yeah, well I get the US entry boost and the Soviet entry boost and I can still build in Egypt yadda yadda blah blah. Which is all meaningless, because at this point the game has veered away from any pretense at simulation and might as well have become Risk. How can you have a system where untold multitudes of troops could embark on transports hundreds of miles away and then just totally ignore all enemy naval and air forces on the way to the invasion site? Like they weren't even there! Sigh.

[jon_j_rambo]

You guys are on crack. What don't you understand about getting in a boat, sailing, and getting out? You only need beaches for heavy equipment. If nobody is present in the landing zone, you're out of the boat in 5 minutes.

The amphi-transports must sit for an entire week before launching, that's the price for preparation. They lose supply each turn & cannot be resupplied or reinforced, unlike SC-1.

You sail to a location & land. In a turn based game, that's the way it goes. There's no reason to let Gerry kill the Yanks as they gotta sit for a week to get out of a boat with nobody blocking the shore.

June 6th, 1944, the Germans were visited by Justice!!!

Hit the beach,

Legend

[xwormwood]

Zone of control for warships & airunits, forbidding amphibs to slip through (or at least slowing them donwn) should do the trick. The invader would be forced to fight a corridor with his own navy / airforce for his amphibius troops.

Effect could be lost if naval/air-unit lost more than 50% or 75% of its full strength.

SSI's Storm across Europe had a feature which prevented transports / amphib landings if the enemies naval & air forces where to strong.

Another idea would be a random but significant loss of strenght points while moving amphib/transports next to enemy naval units or through waters with enemy controled air spaces. You want safe passages? Then fight your way through first.

[jon_j_rambo]

@X-Wood --- Dude, you already take huge damage landing w/o an enemy. Ever hear of Marines, Frogmen, Navy Seals, etc.? That's why the U.S. Navy is the best in the History of the World, we've got it all.

This whole "stop SeaLion" has nothing to do with landing, rather that Gerry didn't have the boats, the will, or know-how to pull it off in reality. The Germans were overrated & got stopped in the Air, why expect them to suddenly become the Sea Kings?

[carverrt]

The issue is capability. What capability should be allowed in this game? You need to have an amphibious capability, but how much impact should it have?

I believe the formula should mirror the real world. With more training, doctrine and technology you have more capability and thus more impact on an enemy.

If you start with low capabilities and allow countries to research for increased capabilities you will have solved the first half of the problem.

The next half of the problem is a little under-defined right now. For every level of increased capability an enemy will match or try to keep up. So, the next issue is; what is the counter-capability to increased amphibious capability? Better air attack, better search, better fortifications, what else?

Robert

[jon_j_rambo]

With a real world, the USA wouldn't have to pay 350 MMPs for Patton.