Amphibious invasions

[Exel]

There are two things that definitely need to be improved for SC2 regarding amphibious invasions.

1. Beaches. The land-everywhere rule of SC1 sucks. It's unrealistic and allows extremely gamey strategies. Instead of having to fight for a narrow beachhead and open it to get more forces in, you can land pretty much your whole army at once. France is the most horrifying example of this. There's a reason why the Allies landed in Normandy... So add beach hexes..err tiles that would work the same way as harbors, but only for disembarking. That includes the ability to disembark the same turn as the transport reaches the shore - the landing crafts didn't have to wait a week on the coast before being able to unload irl. All other tiles would not allow amphibious invasions. This would really boost realism and gameplay, as it's not only Italy that forces narrow initial beachheads.

2. Retreat rules. Even if the beach tile is occupied, you could still land and fight for it. The losing side would then be forced to retreat either back to their transports or the nearest free tile. This would of course require a special kind of combat system, assuming normal combat works the same way as in SC1. Though I think you already have something like this done already or in consideration, since you have paratroopers included too and they need a similar system.

[pzgndr]

That includes the ability to disembark the same turn as the transport reaches the shore

This is what the new Amphibious Transports are intended to do, move AND disembark during the same turn. Now it will be the "staging phase" near ports of embarkation that will be subject to spotting and interdiction, not the turn of invasion. :cool:

AND, unit readiness will now drop with number of turns at sea so that should naturally limit some of the more ambitious invasion ideas. We're figuring this should still be OK for USA Torch landings in North Africa, since opposition should not be too tough. So a low readiness invasion should still work with air and naval support.

Beaches are unlikely. I too would like to see beaches. But we do have a model for landing losses, which could be adjusted for different terrain types and presence of enemy units in the target tile or adjacent tiles.

Retreats are a possibility in SC2. That is being considered.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

It depends on how long a turn is.

If Overlord had gone a week with no actual progress, retreat would not be needed, the Allies would have had to surrender, and the debacle would be a debacle.

I agree on the beaches notion in principle. The game needs a methodology where just placing a land unit on a coastal hex is not sufficient to deny a landing.

The landing at Omaha sure wasn't done unopposed, but they went inland all the same, even if it DID look iffy for a while.

And by D+1, the Allies were more than a few miles inland.

So in a week, things will be either decided or the landing fails. Thus a multi turn landing is not required. It should be an all or nothing result. You land and win, or land and lose.

I also hate that any piece of coast will do. As was mentioned, not every piece of coast was acceptable. Or rather some pieces of coast were better than others.

In my board game Fortess Europa, you could land anywhere, but the how much was determined by the where.

Maybe the game could log each and every tile separately and landing at any specific tile would carry its own unique signature of landing casualties.

Yeah I know, someone gets to pour over some decent references to find out which beaches were good and which beaches sucked.

Oh the joy of designing a decent wargame eh hehe

On the bright side, this will be one of the many steps towards maybe making a Pacific edition easier for the future. Because SC will never see the Pacific until we ace the process of landing on small scraps of land.

[Exel]

The beach system wouldn't have to be any more complex than what it is for example in HoI. Some tiles simply allow landing, some (most) don't. The French coast for example is fringed with steep cliffs and rocky ridges - impossible to land significant number of troops.

Even the Germans knew that there would be only two potential places for an Allied invasion of France, in Calais and Normandy. As I said in the first post, there's a reason why the Allies did not land all over the French coast. This should be reflected in the game, and quite frankly I don't see why it wouldn't be.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Originally posted by Exel:

The beach system wouldn't have to be any more complex than what it is for example in HoI. Some tiles simply allow landing, some (most) don't. The French coast for example is fringed with steep cliffs and rocky ridges - impossible to land significant number of troops.

Even the Germans knew that there would be only two potential places for an Allied invasion of France, in Calais and Normandy. As I said in the first post, there's a reason why the Allies did not land all over the French coast. This should be reflected in the game, and quite frankly I don't see why it wouldn't be.

Playing Devil's Advocate...

I agree that the limited beach concept looks good

in theory, but it may not fit in with how Hubert

and company are coding ground combat. It may make

the job of the defense MUCH easier, with most

every invasion pushed into the sea. Therefore I

think a simple binary "can land/can't land" system

probably wouldn't work. But, as a few people

have intimated, a variable "suitability" scheme

for each coastal hex might work well-sure you can

land in the Le Havre area of France, but your

supply might suck.

John DiFool

[Exel]

Well as in the case of Italy, you really have to fight for the beachhead, but the invasion rarely gets pushed back to the sea if you have prepared it well. Limited landing locations would do the same for all other places and we'd have interesting amphibious landings elsewhere too.

[Bill101]

Suitable landing areas are more common than one might think. The real problem is keeping the troops supplied and reinforced once they have landed.

If it is possible to create a Mulberry harbour, to land extra supplies by boat, and also to evacuate when things go wrong, then I'll be happier to consider restricted landing areas.

However, at the moment landing areas are already restricted by the possiblity of capturing a resource to provide us with supply. No resource = failed invasion.

Therefore in SC1 the only good place to invade France is near Brest.

As we all know that isn't historically correct, but unless other features are changed we will need to continue landing there.

[benpark]

Bad landing spots in history-Galipoli.

That would for all intensive purposes be an "un-landable" spot, but it was done. I think allowing for landings most anywhere is fine, but there should be consequenses for the more difficult terrain in terms of combat and supply.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Bill101:

However, at the moment landing areas are already restricted by the possiblity of capturing a resource to provide us with supply. No resource = failed invasion.

Therefore in SC1 the only good place to invade France is near Brest.

No. When D-Day comes, you invade along the entire coastline of France, bringing most of your western army ashore at once. Surely you can't claim that to be realistic?

[Edwin P.]

The problem with restricting beach landings to only a few hexes is that the Axis can cover those hexes with units, two or three deep, and prevent any Allied invasion.

In my opinion, having landings at only beach hexes would not create the fog of war present during WWII where the Axis had limited troops and had to decide which areas of the French coast to guard. Instead it would cause them to create a wall around the beach hexes that would be impossible for the allies to penetrate.

In my mind, Brest and the northern french coast will still be the preferred invasion sight as the Allies can quickly land reinforcements at the port there and support an invasion with air cover from the British Isles. This landing sight is also easily defended.

[Exel]

I didn't say there should be only a few beach tiles, but not all of them should be landable. The amount of beaches should be plentiful enough so that blocking all of them would be next to impossible, but there should also be a considerable number of no-land tiles.

Otoh, the Germans *did* build their Atlantic wall to defend the beaches.

[Bill101]

Exel wrote:

"No. When D-Day comes, you invade along the entire coastline of France, bringing most of your western army ashore at once. Surely you can't claim that to be realistic?"

Actually, it depends on the situation. I have carried out invasions with between 1 and 10 units landing on the first turn. But, whatever the size of the invasion force, Brest is always the initial target.

A 50 mile stretch of coastline is rarely uniform. Having been to the Normandy beaches, I can say that some aspects of them are rather uninviting to both the tourist and invader alike.

Fancy climbing Point du Hoc? I don't, but the Rangers managed it.

[Edwin P.]

1) I would say that the Allies can land along any coastal hex - considering the fact that they are 50 miles long.

2)Since some coastal hexes are easier to defend than others give any defending unit a hex dependent bonus to their defense strength vs an amphibious invasion.

3) The value of the Atlanitc wall is vastly overrated, its purpose was to slow down any invading force until reinforcements could arrive.

But personaly, I like the current system in SC1.

[Shaka of Carthage]

The ability to conduct Amphib Operations in SC is not a simple issue, because it deals with multiple problems. Let me outline a possible system.

Problems in SC are how to represent the FOW so one side is unsure where an amphib invasion may take place. The other, and this is a problem with the economic system (ie the amount of MPPs), is that Germany should never have enough units to be able to cover every possible amphib invasion site (ie conduct a multiple front war).

Here is a possible solution...

</font>

• Every coastal hex should have a amphib difficulty rating.</font>
• Amphib Tech, which per tech increase, allows you to conduct an amphib landing on increasingly difficult hexes.</font>
• Only Infantry Corps and HQs can become Amphib Transports.</font>

You know have recreated the FOW, since the Axis are unsure what hexes you could possibly land in.

Amphib transports that can move and land are already going be included. Lower readiness for longer transit times were also mentioned.

While I think limiting the range per port is a superior method than the lower readiness, at least something was done about the long distance amphibs.

The ability to land in a hex containing an enemy unit is a matter of interpetation. You didn't land in a spot where the enemy had the same amount of troops as you did. No amphib doctrine in any era teaches that. I think the current system that SC uses, where landing in a "empty" hex can potentially cause amphib losses is ideal. Hence, I don't see the need for there to be a "assualt" and "retreat from combat" option so amphib troops can get ashore. Those are the wrong solutions for a Strategical/Grand Strategical system.

Now, for the most critical part.

Ensure the game design allows combat on the Eastern Front to drain the combat units of Germany. If it wasn't for the losses in the East, Western Allies could never have gotten ashore in Europe. The details of how to do this are another topic.

[Hubert Cater]

Ensure the game design allows combat on the Eastern Front to drain the combat units of Germany. If it wasn't for the losses in the East, Western Allies could never have gotten ashore in Europe. The details of how to do this are another topic.

Correct and there has been some thought put into this as well Two basic changes/ideas (well three if you include the build limits option as also having an effect) that should have an effect will be with regards to strategic bombers and operating of units.

With Strategic Bombers, the change/idea here will be to allow the bombing of resources even if units are on top of them... this will in essense model the pre bombardment/disruption of infrastructure/rail lines etc., prior to an amphibious assault. So what you ask? Well since you cannot operate/build a unit to/in a city that has it's strength < 5 it should limit some of the instant reinforcement/builds that quite often occur in SC1.

Another operation rule I am toying with is to only allow units to operate that are within or adjacent a city, i.e. to simulate movement only from the railheads sort of thing and not from just anywhere in the field. This would be in conjunction to the existing minimum supply rule that also applies to operating units.

Some subtle changes like this might just be enough to have players rethink some of their strategies and to even consider active reserves in potential hotspots!

Hubert

[Codename Condor]

It was obvious that the unlimited operations in SC gave a great advantage to axis, making fast transfers from russia to an undefended france, and that it should to be changed, so im glad about it.

The strategic bombing new feature is a good idea too, an a big advantage for the allies.

And what to say about build time of units, i always supported the idea of a queue production (much more realistic). This and the units limits are another disavantage for axis.

My only concern is that with all these new ideas it could tweak the game towards the allies, but i think its a good way to fix some of the problems SC had.

[KDG]

Another operation rule I am toying with is to only allow units to operate that are within or adjacent a city, i.e. to simulate movement only from the railheads sort of thing and not from just anywhere in the field. This would be in conjunction to the existing minimum supply rule that also applies to operating units.

I like this idea alot. This would require some units to first move towards a city(going to catch the train), then operate(taking the train), making the effort two turns instead of one.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Mr H

Strategic Bombers ... to allow the bombing of resources even if units are on top of them ...

Good. That would give another reason for the Western Allies to invest in thier strategic bombers. I think you should also consider taking this one step further, and allow Air units to perform the same missions (ie strategic interdiction).

... only allow units to operate that are within or adjacent a city ...

I'd like to offer a different approach. We know the problem is too many units being able to operate where they are needed at the time they are needed. Limit the number of operating moves a nation can perform. And tie that limit to the industrial production multiplier.

For example, if Germany has 10 operate moves, if its industrial multiplier is only at .6, then it can only conduct 6 operate moves. Of course, the costs to perform that operating move are still there.

[KDG]

I'd like to offer a different approach. We know the problem is too many units being able to operate where they are needed at the time they are needed. Limit the number of operating moves a nation can perform. And tie that limit to the industrial production multiplier.

I think I read that they are going to do this, with a tech to increase the number of operations per turn.

[Hubert Cater]

Shaka

I think you should also consider taking this one step further, and allow Air units to perform the same missions (ie strategic interdiction)

Yes this is an option to consider as well

I'd like to offer a different approach. We know the problem is too many units being able to operate where they are needed at the time they are needed. Limit the number of operating moves a nation can perform. And tie that limit to the industrial production multiplier...

This is an idea I've thought about but I think that in a sense this already exists since the number of operations you can make is tied to your overal economic situation. If your MPP's are not that great you have to balance how many operations you will perform vs. other expenditures like rebuilding/purchasing units etc. In general I've tried to get away from specific limits like these and abstract them for more flexible game play. It is perhaps an oversimplification at times, and can definitly be argued against, but playability and realism are always a delicate balance.

Agreed though, your proposal is also dynamic but in a different sense.

[Ron]

Originally posted by Codename Condor:

It was obvious that the unlimited operations in SC gave a great advantage to axis, making fast transfers from russia to an undefended france, and that it should to be changed, so im glad about it.

Re operating units, I came across an interesting tidbit while reading "An Army at Dawn". During the Casablanca conference while the Allies were hammering out their next move, the British Staff had done an analysis of a possible German reaction to a cross-channel invasion. They calculated that within two weeks the Germans could transfer 11 Divisions from Germany and 7 Divisions from Russia to counter the Allies. This was due to the extensive rail network covering northern Europe. In the same token, the Allied staffs had badly miscalculated the speed of the German build-up in Tunisia, the Germans actually transferred twice as many troops as the Allies thought possible. Maybe not relavent, but something to chew on nonetheless.

Ron

[Exel]

How about returning to the original subject of amphibious invasions?

I like Hubert's plans for refining operational movement though.

[KDG]

Beware the topic police.

[Lars]

I liked the "land anywhere" part of SC. And on that scale it worked. The real limitation was the lack of depth and ports in North Africa, making it worthless for staging into Italy, Southern France or the Balkans. With a bigger map I hope these options are now possible.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Lars:

I liked the "land anywhere" part of SC. And on that scale it worked.

Did it, really? Somehow it's just too much for me to see the Allies land their whole army at once along the entire French coastline. It just aint right.