Transports / Amphib Scouts/bug/balance

[Iron Ranger]

Have not played in some time, waiting for 1.03 I guess and not time. But thought I'd drop this note perhaps before 1.03 is gold. Sorry but I dont thave the time to run test or the desire to check scrpits (others could comment on below)

In several games now I have notice that naval units do little damage to transports and amphib (?) units. Some of this is supply and weather but I'm really starting to wounder if its a bug, are the naval units treating the 'shiped ground units' as ground units still? Its gotten to the point I us transports as scouts, even when they get ambushed by a BB they only take 1-2 damage it seams.

If its not a bug, and just a combo of Weather, luck ect.... I think we need to make a change. A new naval unit attack value for CN, BB, CV, and Subs when attacking these easy targets. Something huge, between 6-10 attack value on any combat unit the bombards a ground unit at sea. These slow, heavy loaded, tubs would sink nmass to any serious battle with a combat group of naval ships.

BBs 8

CN 10

CV 8

Subs 6

Perhaps give transports a defensive value of 1, as a few minor naval units would be with them anyway. Amphib would get a 0, these would need protection from the big boys. On the side this would make a Sealion (with a ready RN and RAF) very risky!

[Canuck_para]

I agree. I think it should be deadly when transports or amphibs are caught by naval units at sea. This would force players to keep a navy to protect landings unkike now where the Axis can land easily even when they have no navy.

[Liam]

While watching a show about Landings at Gaudalcanal, without decent protection the US did some serious damage upon Japanese Amphibious Transports. I'm not sure the exact extent of this, I am pretty certian it gives a prime example of the weakness of amphibous/transport craft vs able surface ships.. sittind ducks in a barrel in other words, too slow, no armor, no guns really... Also remeber it took the Bismark what 1 salvo to kill the Hood?

That is not represented in the same exact way in SC2, however.. a Battlefleet would do Major Damage to a transport.

It would be also worthwhile for the UK and US to buy subs, to post around coastlines and suspected Axis landing zones.. They should be virtually invisible and deadly

On top of all this, I'd also like to see Axis or Allied bombers who occuppy a certian amount Tiles within a landing zone to a have a percentage chance of inflicting more damage upon Landing Amphibious Craft..> Meaning air supremacy matters < especially those unescorted by fighters and without air supremacy, Divebombers, Naval Bombers took a toll on and Carrier born aircraft upon amphibious craft crossing their paths.. Hard to believe a Amphib moving in the Fighter, fighterbomber range of a CV takes no damage from it. Hell, those boys would be, "GUYS GET AIRBORNE even if you haven't slept in 48 HOURS! Kill those Floating Infantry!"

[ August 21, 2006, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[SeaMonkey]

I like the idea of the subs, Liam, but what do you get, 1 each for UK and USA with the hard build limits.

UK should get at least two and the USA, well come on, you are going to limit the USA manufacturing capabilities of WW2. Give me a break!

USA should be able to build whatever they want in the quantities they deem necessary for the missions ahead.

The only limiting factor is the available MPPs.

I advocate no build limits for the Americans, MPP restriction only.

[Jollyguy]

I agree with Liam, transports should take more damage from capital ships. I've bumped into transports with BBs and inflicted a couple damage, and then rushed other ships in and they sometimes inflict no damage. It seems SC 1 handled this better.

However, perhaps the thinking was that transports came with a destroyer escort, and that's why they take less damage than SC1? I remember discussion of destroyers in SC1, so perhaps thats it?

Bob

[Iron Ranger]

Destroyers would provide a minor (1) defesive value to transports. Heavy naval units would still blow unarmored (they a high attack value) transports out of the water. I do not think subs should have a extreamly high attack (6 is barly over midrange) due to how slow they were in WW2. Subs we slower underwater then most 'fast transports' and barely faster above... depending on the weather.

[Blashy]

An amphibious transport is not ONE ship but thousands.

One corps is 100 000 or so men, that can easily mean 50 ships.

So loosing 2 points is 20 000 men, more if it is an army group.

So it it all relative.

Too me it makes sense as is for the reasons above.

[Retributar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corps

Military formation:

In many armies, a corps refers to a unit of approximately 60,000 men, composed of usually three divisions, and typically commanded by a lieutenant general. During World War I and World War II, due to the large scale of combat, multiple corps were combined into armies which then formed into army groups .

More EXPLICIT Information:

http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/structure/army_structure.htm#basic

Basic Army structure

ARMY GROUP: Made up of Two or more Corps

CORPS: STRENGTH: 30,000 or more_Made up of Two or more Divisions

DIVISION: STRENGTH: 10,000 - 20,000_Made up of Three Brigade's

[ August 24, 2006, 04:47 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Liam]

If this is the case you should allow for the huge limitations of operations to the European Theatre. Only a few long range weapons made there way to England, only a percentage of America's Production "personally." Wasn't till '44 the true grit of American production made it way to Europe for a real War.. took her 2 or 3 years and with the Pacific sideshow to truly mobilize

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

I like the idea of the subs, Liam, but what do you get, 1 each for UK and USA with the hard build limits.

UK should get at least two and the USA, well come on, you are going to limit the USA manufacturing capabilities of WW2. Give me a break!

USA should be able to build whatever they want in the quantities they deem necessary for the missions ahead.

The only limiting factor is the available MPPs.

I advocate no build limits for the Americans, MPP restriction only.

[Canuck_para]

I have another thought on amphib landings. Is it possible to increase the landing losses based on the naval forces in a certain range? If the landing side had more forces then no extra loss besides the normal landing loss but if there are more enemy ships then the losses are increased but a certain amount. A similar thing could be done with air units. It would be like they are conducting intercept/interdiction mission while the landings are occuring.

The whole reasoning behind this is that I find that amphibs occur to0 often particularly when one side has no naval vessels or any air cover and yet can land almost at will.

[Gavrok]

Totally agree with the last point...have flagged before that I believe the issue with amphib landings could have been dealt with easier if when calculating landing losses the variance in fleet (and air units) should have a large impact....within a certain range (5-6 moves)

This would make it imperative for axis to force RN to retreat or fight it.

Do not believe an amphib landing was possible against even naval parity in ww2...look at Guadalcanal with the risks the Japanese took to reinforce...unsuccessfully....and this wasn't even amphib assault

G

[R.J.]

Originally posted by Blashy:

An amphibious transport is not ONE ship but thousands.

One corps is 100 000 or so men, that can easily mean 50 ships.

So loosing 2 points is 20 000 men, more if it is an army group.

So it it all relative.

Too me it makes sense as is for the reasons above.

Very true, but it also represents 2-8 weeks worth of naval operations in a rather abstract way. It would seem to me that if a nation has the will and ability to launch naval attacks against an invasion, it should be rewarded with more than a 20% decline in a corp's/army's fighting strength.

Reducing the transported unit's supply a few points for each attack could be one option.

[Blashy]

If you attack a tranport you will do much more than 2-3 points of damage.

[Bromley]

Just hit a US army amphib transport that had crossed the Atlantic with an Italian sub at 8 supply. 5 for 0, which seemed fair.

[TaoJah]

IMHO damage to a transporter that carries an army should be less then to a transporter that carries a corps.

An army is transefer in -say- 200 ships, a corps in -say- 50.

So if a BS can sink -say- 30 ships, it should only reduce the army transporter to 7 and the corps transporter to 4.

However, I do think it's wrong that HQ are seperate transporters, they should be in the transporter as an army and always survive until last. Generals don't take transporters in real, so they should not be killed in them in the game.

[Retributar]

Some realistic, practical, thought-provoking concept's you have there TaoJah !.

I personally like your idea's, and i hope that they can be accomadated into the game.