Amphibious assault – MAJOR ISSUE

[jon_j_rambo]

Landing craft isn't Jet technology. Yeah, it takes some skill, but it wasn't landing on the moon, rather a beach.

[Guest Mike]

Of course landing craft arent' jet airctaft - if they were you wouldn't be able to use them until you had advanced a/c lvl 5!!

Sheesh!

But amphibious ability did take time and effort to develop, and that is what the tech system requires you to use to develop stuff in this game.

After all what's the actual new technology in a Tiver V vs a Panzer III?

It's just a bigger version of what's gone before.

Ditto for piston engined a/c (ie everything up to lvl 4 in the game), while infantry weapons represent what - more LMG's and SMG's? None of them are "new technology"

The technology development system fits the historical advancement of amphibious capabilities well.

[Cheese Panzer]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

It didn't take technology to make "better boats" for the United States.

Yes it did. It also requires doctrine developement and training which don't suddenly happen because you have a bunch of neat equipment - just ask any Soviet client state from the past 40 years or so.

The US spent most of the '30's doing amphibious operations against small countries around the Carribean (read up on Marine Colonel "Pete" Ellis sometime) and the lessons learned about conducting amphibious operations were vital to the successes of WWII.

Putting a bunch of guys on a barge and calling them an amphibious capable assault force is about the same as stuffing a bunch of guys in an airplane and calling them paratroopers. It just ain't so.

[hellraiser]

@CheeseP -> kinda makes sense, indeed.

The amphib warfare 'evolved' during ww2 from almost a 'gamble' (see Torch - the planning was a joke, political foggy things (french attitude), lack of air support could have made a failure out of it) to a well planned invasion - see Overlord and Anvil Dragoon (less gambling, more brainz into it and adequate air support).

All those mega landings were possible because of one single factor - US economical might who could produce anything in a reasonable time frame and adequate quality/quantity.

While Torch was 'let's go there see what will happen', Overlord was more about extensive training, simulations of fortifications assaults, etc, good logistic planning and close and enough air support.

In SC2, the ideea of loading an entire army in LCTs/LSTs or whatever boats may fit , sailing thru potential hostile waters and land succesfully virtually everywhere on the map is a little far fetched

Lack of air support would make any attempt to land somewhere a mere gamble. Disregard of weather conditions, the same. IMO while sailing thru storms, amphib troops should suffer more than 1 str point loss - greatly reduced morale (can you imagine a boat full of GIs puking all over and then be able to hit like a hammer the Brest garrison?)

The thing I like the most is the cost associated with amphib stuff. I wouldn't mind raising it though - think that a failed Overlord would have meant several years of gearing up for another one ...

[Timskorn]

I think dropping their range down some would resolve a lot of issues. Germany wouldn't be able to sail out from Denmark, for example, and land in the UK in one turn. They'd have to build up in France, which would allow air and sea to hit units before they could be put into transports.

The bottom line is, amphib assaults need to retain their ability to happen in a single turn if within range of their destination. Their range just seems to be a little long at this point.

[jon_j_rambo]

1 turn = week, do the math. Remember, 1 turn is used just to load, that's plenty of delay.

[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?

As for possible solutions, the easiest would be to just raise the mpp cost and/or tweak the ranges on a country specific basis, perhaps tied to an existing tech, like Infrastructure, for decreases, as that's the transport one.

[Cheese Panzer]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

1 turn = week, do the math. Remember, 1 turn is used just to load, that's plenty of delay.

1 major invasion = 3 million men = two years to plan and execute. Do the math.

[jon_j_rambo]

It didn't take the a week to get out of a boat.

[Panzerkeil]

I don't think that was his implication. He's making the point that it took time to marshall the men and supplies necessary to launc a serious landing. In addition to the logistics is the necessity for training and the right support equipment.

The Allied landings in Norway, for example, were a farce, with plenty of logistical cockups. They sent mountain troops with skis, but no bindings for them; insufficient supplies and equipment. I've read nothing historically to indicate that a German landing in England would have been any less mismanaged.

[rleete]

Rolend, an excellent first post. Welcome.

I like the idea of a tech. I'd also add that higher levels get you more movement points for the transports. Level 0 should be about 1/4 to 1/3 of what it is now. A level 3 teck would bring you up to about 3/4 of the movement points.

[Rolend]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

It didn't take the a week to get out of a boat.

No but it also does not take a week to send in your navy and air force to dispatch those landing craft. In a turn based game, no matter what the time ref. is, you have to make allowences for balance. For me having real landing craft instead of boats and barges makes a huge differance in the time that the opposing forces have to react to the landings. Thus a 'Landing Craft' Tec tree makes since. The better LC you have and the better you know how to use them makes a big impact. Have no LC tec and it forces you to wait a turn, have a good LC tec and you can land right away, seems like a fair and balanced option to me.

[jon_j_rambo]

You're already forced to waste an entire week getting in the boat. WHAT'S WITH THIS INTERCEPT CRAP? Why not allow intercept of ground movement too?

What's going on here?

It's simple. The United States sent men with guns to England. Then, the men with guns got in boats again, and landed on French beaches.

You clowns want it so the Germans don't have to defend their beaches with ground troops, yet are allow to intercept from protective positions.

Okay, then I want the ability to "Intercept the Intercepts".

[Rolend]

Rambo that is NOT my intention at all, and I agree if you don't defend your shores then you can't stop landings. The intention of adding a LC tec. is to mirror history, the ability to have and use good LC was a very important aspect to the allies when it came to Normandy and the lack of that same tec is a VERY large reason why Germany even failed to try an invasion of England.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Rolend:

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

It didn't take the a week to get out of a boat.

No but it also does not take a week to send in your navy and air force to dispatch those landing craft. In a turn based game, no matter what the time ref. is, you have to make allowences for balance. For me having real landing craft instead of boats and barges makes a huge differance in the time that the opposing forces have to react to the landings. Thus a 'Landing Craft' Tec tree makes since. The better LC you have and the better you know how to use them makes a big impact. Have no LC tec and it forces you to wait a turn, have a good LC tec and you can land right away, seems like a fair and balanced option to me. </font>

[Timskorn]

Considering how little amphib transports are used in the game adding a new tech line is overkill. Granted, the two times it can be used may have a huge impact (Sealion and D-Day), but I don't see any reason to do major changes on this. Increasing the cost or lowering their range are easy, small fixes that can have a huge impact already.

[Rolend]

Originally posted by Lars:

As I recall, German sent most of her troops to Norway on the back of destroyers and hidden in freighters. See no real need for a seperate tech, as there are other ways of getting the job done.

Yea against a nation that they were not yet at war with and against a nation that had very little navy and air to counter with. Had Germany tried that method of landings in England the RN and RAF would of put some serious hurt on those units long before they even reached shore. See this is the problem I have with the way landings happen now, they don't take into consideration a landing in a hot and contested area.

Had the Allies tried the Normandy landings using boats and barges instead of the LC they did use I hate to think of how high the death toll would of been and how much weaker they would of been once they did get ashore.

EDIT ADDED:

Originally posted by Timskorn:

Considering how little amphib transports are used in the game adding a new tech line is overkill. Granted, the two times it can be used may have a huge impact (Sealion and D-Day), but I don't see any reason to do major changes on this. Increasing the cost or lowering their range are easy, small fixes that can have a huge impact already.

Yes you might be right about that, after all I am not a programer, I just tossed it out as an idea of how to make Amphib Landings a little more realistic and balanced.

[ May 04, 2006, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Rolend ]

[Panzerkeil]

Norway was not a classic amphibious assault. It involved capture of ports by subterfuge and airborne assault, after which the initial troops were reinforced by conventional transport means. Taking Norway by surprise is not the same thing as launching D-Day against defended beaches.

Rambo, it was not quite as simplistic as you state. If it was, all the Germans had to do was "put some men in boats and sail them across the channel." When D-day was launched, both ends of the Channel were sealed, by sea and by air. The Germans lost a number of U-boats trying to get near the transports. The reason for this was to prevent an interception, whether by U-boat, E-boat or Luftwaffe. The Germans could not do this in 1940, seal the Channel by sea and by air, and that's why Sealion did not occur.

According to the game, the Royal Navy, RAF and Bomber Command all sit at their base drinking tea as the Germans casually saunter across on their barges and tugs, not lifting a finger to interfere. And we are called clowns to point out this inconvenient fact of life? The intention here is not to prevent D-Day, but an unrealistic Sealion as it seems is so easily pulled off in the game.

[Timskorn]

How are landing casualties calculated? Do troops have to land next to an enemy unit for a chance to take damage upon landing? I'm trying to get the manual up here at work but it's slow goin'.

Increasing the chance of landing casualties may help, and this would prevent the need for having units in every tile along the shore.

Or, the ability for airplanes to 'intercept' whenever a transport is in its range. This would require air superiority in the area to prevent enemy planes from interdicting.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Rolend:

Yea against a nation that they were not yet at war with and against a nation that had very little navy and air to counter with. Had Germany tried that method of landings in England the RN and RAF would of put some serious hurt on those units long before they even reached shore. See this is the problem I have with the way landings happen now, they don't take into consideration a landing in a hot and contested area.

Had the Allies tried the Normandy landings using boats and barges instead of the LC they did use I hate to think of how high the death toll would of been and how much weaker they would of been once they did get ashore.

Actually, I think it could have been pulled off without all the fancy boats. Sure, losses would have been higher, but not critically so. D-Day was a bit of overkill.

Look, things can go terribly wrong in a amphibious invasion, no argument there. But they can also go terribly right. The real problems usually occur after you get ashore, not during the actual assault. And I'm unaware of a historical example of a assault being slaughtered while still trying to hit the beach. Hmm, maybe something from the Greeks…

All I'm saying is I don't think we need a separate tech for something that nations have been doing for centuries. See my first post above.

[Rolend]

Lars you don't have to go back as far as the Greeks, try WWI and the British landings against Turkey. Yes I agree that the real reason the Allies were able to land in France was their totaly air and sea power. However without good LC the loses would of been so much more and it would of taken them weeks to do what it took them days. Giving Hitler time to wake up from his nap and send in the Panzer. I think that just saying something like, "just put them in boats and drop them off" is way under stating the problem with amphib Ops. just ask any Marine what he thinks of that

EDIT ADDED:

With a few minutes to think about it you can add the invasion of Japan by China, yea I know the storm is given all the credit for the failure but had they been able to land strait away they wouldn't of been on the boats when the storm did hit.

[ May 04, 2006, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Rolend ]

[Lars]

Ah, but the actual landings at Gallipoli were (relatively) successful. And that was in open whaleboats. It was the next three months that was the bitchy part.

Despite the Marine Corps propaganda, you usually get ashore somewhere.

[Desert Dave]

Timskorn, slashing the Gordian Knot:

... but I don't see any reason to do major changes on this. Increasing the cost or lowering their range are easy, small fixes that can have a huge impact already.

Nor do I.

Therefore, couldn't agree more. :cool:

If we are intending to micro-manage

This one aspect of the total war,

Then we may as well consider it

For many other critical components,

Every one of them a sparkling sapphire

In the eye of each beholder,

Such as separate Armor, Army

And Corps ZOC that varies

For each type of terrain,

And according to weather, etc, etc,

And etc, etc.

[Rolend]

DD yep I agree with you and Lars, to late to add after the game is already finished. However that still leaves us with the problem of the Germans being able to pull off Sealion so easy when in reality I think it would of been darn near impossible for them to do it. Increasing the cost and lowering the range just won't fix that problem.

[Desert Dave]

Increasing the cost and lowering the range just won't fix that problem.

Rolend,

Let's see what Hubert comes up with,

And... just maybe,

It WILL fix the problem.

Not to say some other "enhancements"

Wouldn't be considered

Down that rutted dusty road some, but,

For now let's try whatever IS

Introduced in Patch #1,

And go from there.

Meaning... any and all suggestions

Are yet valuable and remain

"On the great gaming table."