Amphibious assault – MAJOR ISSUE

[Sombra]

@vveed : You could cross the Atlantik in a "paddleboat". Still I won´t recommend it.

Lower amphib range of transports would mean:

German troops are half drowned when they reach Amerika and could be easily catched by the Royal Navy. (Ships would be much faster then the transports). I think this is enough to prevent an Axis invasion in the US.

If on the other hand the allied player does absolutly nothing to defend and patrol its shores then the axis player should be able to hurt him badly therefore I am against script solutions to make the US an fortress.

I think the game mechanics work fine if we have to consider the same logical choices as the commanders in WW2 => As Excel explained there were good reasons why the invasion took place in the Normandy (I think the German expected an invasion near Brest) and not in Kiel or Bremen. Why Scicly was chosen and not directly Rome.

Still you should be able to do it with "realistic" drawbacks.

[LampCord]

Yeah, I think the shorter range kills any kind of USA invasion. At that speed, you could spot transports as the left France and have time to build corps which would be waiting for them on the shore of the US. It only takes 3 turns to build a corp and it takes 6 just to reach Canada at 3 spaces / turn

But someone mentioned making it 3-5 spaces. That won't cut it. Especially 5. Remember the spotting range for a bomber is only 5 and that would assume its sitting right on the coast about to be invaded where it would be vulnerable to battleships.

That means you could ammass a huge number of troops outside of spotting range and slip them all in on one turn. Just like you can now.

No. 5 will not cut it. I don't even think 4 will. For this to have a real effect on gameplay it has to be 3 or less.

Making amph tranny's more expensive makes sense too. But that alone doesn't solve the problem of being able to move onto shore right under the nose of enemy air. The movement thing does.

Maybe both?

[Lars]

Well, I showed the range on LST's, so there's no historical reason to limit the range, and as you point out, it doesn't solve the game play problem anyway.

I think this,

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.

Along with this,

Auto Naval Patrol - Intercepts Amphibious Transports in Range. Thus it would ignore other naval vessels - such as subs, cruisers, carrier fleets and normal transports. I would also allow bombers to perform the same function.

would solve the problem. Now you need to win the air and sea fight before trying Sealion, or suffer at least four hits on the transports. 1 AF, 1 Bomber & 2 Carriers, if still in range. Move the Med Carrier up to England and it'll be very difficult to pull off.

This would also help the Axis to an extent on their side in France and Italy, but not wildly so. And it would force the Allies to win air superiority to an extent before trying their invasions.

Also would help for some of those ahistorical Med amphib ops you see now. If you're getting dinged by a AF in Malta , a AF in Egypt, and the Med Carrier, suddenly sailing around Alexandria to do the surprise landing in the rear don't look so good.

[jon_j_rambo]

No, let Germany land, fine by me. I'd love to see the Army of the People of the United States of America...See you at Gettysburg, son.

This great land is filled with people packing heat for love to fight for freedom...there's more than one Sgt. Alvin B. York! We all know Alvin got converted before battle, so we have the Lord of Hosts on our side.

Let them come to Philly! They'd never even see the Appalation Mountains, unless they were in chains. Open up Andersonville!

Every citizen here would first stop by Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Dayton...to be supplied with tanks, machine guns, hand grenades, etc. Imagine getting the manpower out of Chicago, St. Louis, & Cincy. The Germans wouldn't be able to beat up our old ladies, farmers, or religious free people.

"All true Americans love to fight" --- Patton.

[hellraiser]

is Axis invade USA, a script should be popping up 'Rambo HQ formed in Idaho, all american troops receive 7 xp bars, +200% morale, phasers and X-Wing fighters'

Though you'd still be challenged by a lil' green bunta fellow swinging a lightsaber in Miami

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Having Bermuda with one of those naval bombers

would likely help the spotting problem. I still

think tech is the route to go here: let Germany try

a Sealion (or the American Gambit) with level 0

landing craft-slow, poor defense, crappy supply,

subject to LOTS of damage from storms.

On D-Day, OTOH, the Allies probably had what could

be called level 3-4 tech in landing craft-better at

resisting storms/supply losses at sea, faster, a bit

better at defending themselves. It took them awhile

to figure out what worked, and what didn't, but

the eventually got it, while the Germans seriously

thought river barges would get lots of troops

across the Channel safely.

Most of the other suggestions I've seen here are

kludges, where porking the Nazis in 1940 means

porking the Allies in 1942/43/44, which to me is

unacceptable.

[Ottosmops]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Every citizen in the greatest nation ever would be fighting against Somebra's Grandpa!

What has China to do with SC2?

[jon_j_rambo]

@OttoBunta --- China? Send in the missionaries!

Freedom rings,

Legend

[LampCord]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Open up Andersonville!

LMAO. Dude that is cold!

[LampCord]

Originally posted by Lars:

[QB] Well, I showed the range on LST's, so there's no historical reason to limit the range, and as you point out, it doesn't solve the game play problem anyway.

I think this,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

Along with this,

Auto Naval Patrol - Intercepts Amphibious Transports in Range. Thus it would ignore other naval vessels - such as subs, cruisers, carrier fleets and normal transports. I would also allow bombers to perform the same function.

</font>

[Lars]

Yeah, but I think it would be a simple programming change. The code is pretty much there already with Intercept for AF.

The other part of it can already be done through the editor, except for the Infrastructure tech tie-in, which I would also like to see. Infrastructure 0 - two amphibs. Infrastructure 1 - three. etc.

[ May 08, 2006, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Lars ]

[Rolend]

Originally posted by John DiFool the 2nd:

Having Bermuda with one of those naval bombers

would likely help the spotting problem. I still

think tech is the route to go here: let Germany try

a Sealion (or the American Gambit) with level 0

landing craft-slow, poor defense, crappy supply,

subject to LOTS of damage from storms.

On D-Day, OTOH, the Allies probably had what could

be called level 3-4 tech in landing craft-better at

resisting storms/supply losses at sea, faster, a bit

better at defending themselves. It took them awhile

to figure out what worked, and what didn't, but

the eventually got it, while the Germans seriously

thought river barges would get lots of troops

across the Channel safely.

Most of the other suggestions I've seen here are

kludges, where porking the Nazis in 1940 means

porking the Allies in 1942/43/44, which to me is

unacceptable.

Oh I agree that the best solution is a tech, but is it practical at this point. I would think that would require some hefty programming to implement and you normally don't see that in a game after it has been released.

To Rambo, I think you have watched one too many Rambo movies

[Timskorn]

It'd be a waste of Hubert's time to implement a tech for this. It can be resolved in other, faster ways that'll allow HC to do 100 other things for future patches.

[Exel]

Yes, like reducing the amphib. range. That takes like 5 minutes and get back to work on other things.

The question is only what range to give them. LampCord made a good point about a range of 5, but on the other hand, any less and you can't invade Normandy from London in one turn. If that's not a problem then 3 would be fine.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Timskorn:

It'd be a waste of Hubert's time to implement a tech for this. It can be resolved in other, faster ways that'll allow HC to do 100 other things for future patches.

A new tech would be too much work, but adding on to an existing tech would be easy enough.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Exel:

Yes, like reducing the amphib. range. That takes like 5 minutes and get back to work on other things.

The question is only what range to give them. LampCord made a good point about a range of 5, but on the other hand, any less and you can't invade Normandy from London in one turn. If that's not a problem then 3 would be fine.

Why do you insist on reducing the range, when as Lampcord has already shown, it doesn't necessarily solve the problem?

Besides, we can all do that ourselves if we wish.

[Todd Treadway]

This topic was again brought forth in a PBEM game I'm playing right now.

As the Axis, I decided to do a SeaLion after finishing off Alexandria. I felt absolutely no inclination to send my ships into harm's way to intercept, block or assist the landing. Maybe there would be a use for them against the USA, but not in a SeaLion under the current system. I've always thought a naval zone system works best with strategic games, if you can handle the abstraction, and it has been confirmed again. Clash of Steel got it right in at least that regard. Whatever solution is reached, I am glad that so many others agree that there is a problem. I look forward to whatever Hubert comes up with as a fix.

Other than that small problem, this is a very fun game. Definitely worth the $$.

[Gavrok]

I did mention this before but it ties in with the thread above:

Any damage units on 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. Makes one side have to scour the seas close to the landing sites and makes the other side have to keep air/navy units generally close to these sites.

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

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Todd Treadway:

This topic was again brought forth in a PBEM game I'm playing right now.

As the Axis, I decided to do a SeaLion after finishing off Alexandria. I felt absolutely no inclination to send my ships into harm's way to intercept, block or assist the landing. Maybe there would be a use for them against the USA, but not in a SeaLion under the current system. I've always thought a naval zone system works best with strategic games, if you can handle the abstraction, and it has been confirmed again. Clash of Steel got it right in at least that regard. Whatever solution is reached, I am glad that so many others agree that there is a problem. I look forward to whatever Hubert comes up with as a fix.

Other than that small problem, this is a very fun game. Definitely worth the $$.

If you felt no inclination to protect your amphibious troops than your opponent is simply not a good player, actually he is probably a terrible player :cool: .

[Exel]

Originally posted by Lars:

Why do you insist on reducing the range, when as Lampcord has already shown, it doesn't necessarily solve the problem?

Because it is the simplest, easiest and by far the most functional solution to the issue. Unless you can suggest something better. LampCord btw didn't argue against reducing the range, he only stated that a range of 5 would still be problematic considering bomber spotting range (though now that I think of it, isn't it 6 tiles and not 5?).

[jon_j_rambo]

I think this whole intercept thing is garbage. If you're going to start all these limitations for the United States to wait a week "to get out of a boat", allowing Fritz to hide his power pieces in Southern France, then I'll ship my copy back to Battlefront.

SC-2 is biased in favor of Germany, just for sales. They didn't have a prayer to win. They didn't beat any real opponents. They lost at the Battle of Britain, Russia, N.Africa, USA, etc. Germany defeated nobody, they liberated Poland, Denmark, LC, France, Balklins, etc...because they were all Bunta killers already.

Germany had a 3 year start to defeat the nobodies, the game isn't realistic.

Even if Germany landed on England with a beachhead, they still would have lost. The US would have poured in everything they had & taken a break from Japan. It wouldn't have taken long either, as the game protrays. The English wouldn't have surrendered either.

The United States fought two wars across the Oceans. Do you realize the logistics involved to coordinate that?

"Do you realize what this is? It's a fresh cake from Boston. The Americans have gasoline to ship all the way to the front lines." --- Col. Hessler, from the movie classic, Battle of the Bulge.

If you're going to start air intercept for ship movement. THEN I WANT AIR INTERCEPT FOR GROUND MOVEMENT (see Battle of the Bulge). You'd better remake the entire game.

[LampCord]

Originally posted by Exel:

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

Why do you insist on reducing the range, when as Lampcord has already shown, it doesn't necessarily solve the problem?

Because it is the simplest, easiest and by far the most functional solution to the issue. Unless you can suggest something better. LampCord btw didn't argue against reducing the range, he only stated that a range of 5 would still be problematic considering bomber spotting range (though now that I think of it, isn't it 6 tiles and not 5?). </font>

[jon_j_rambo]

You guys are not even discussing the correct technology for the defense of England. It's called RADAR. Mr. Al Turing & friends did a number on Wolfgang.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Exel:

Because it is the simplest, easiest and by far the most functional solution to the issue.

Oh yeah, agree there. Easily made a house rule with the editor.

I was just trying to help thrash out something for the patch, and I think Hubert could do better than that alone with minimal effort.

If nothing else, we gave him plenty of ideas in this thread.

[Lars]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

You guys are not even discussing the correct technology for the defense of England. It's called RADAR. Mr. Al Turing & friends did a number on Wolfgang.

Rambo, there's quite a bit of difference between doing an air search and a sea search with radar. Mostly, this little thing called the horizon. See here.

https://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/rdr-hori.pdf

So, against an invasion fleet, you'd get about fifteen minutes warning as they come over the horizon. Not enough to do any good.

Against bombers coming in at 10,000 feet however, about two hours.