Amphibious landings on major same turn as DOW

[Lars]

Why invent more rules? Aren't landing losses abstracted enough to cover that eventuality for you? Just tweak the range if it turns out to be a problem. If it is even a problem. Last thing I want to see is SC2 turn into 3rd Reich, with umpteen million "special" rules that nobody can ever be arsed to look up anyway. Keep it simple, stupid.

Besides, leaked plans would cover anything, not just an amphibious landing. I believe the Germans first stab at invading France was canceled due to a leak, for instance. Perhaps just a random chance of increase in the target nation's readiness would do, depending on Intel levels.

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

The best solution I've seen covering the gamey aspect of this was mentioned earlier by SeaMonkey.

He said that in the process of preparing there's a risk that the invading country's plans are leaked to the country it's targetting. The neutral country goes on heightened alert. Vague, some details suggested by SeaMonkey, but it's something good to work with and more details could esily be worked out.

Are you proposing that if there are amphibious transports within invasion range of a neutral nation (or specific neutrals such as Italy and Sweden) there is a chance - say 20% - that the defending units entrench? This would reflect troops being placed on heightened alert. Or as Lars suggests the combat readiness of that nation increases for that turn.

For a more complex solution:

Percentage Change of Neutral Nation Readiness/Entrenchment Bonus = Number of Units on Border + Number of Amphibious Transports at Sea within Landing Range.

Example:

3 amphibious units within landing range + 2 Corps on border = 5% neutral nation's forces gain readiness Bonus or Entrenchment Bonus for that turn.

6 Units (Army + Armor + Corps) on Border = 6% for bonus to neutral forces.

You could have this adjusted by a multiple based on the country. This would reflect the relative willingness of each nation to mobilize its forces if it perceives a threat.

Example:

Netherlands x1 = 1 x 5% = 5%

Sweden x4 = 4 x 5% = 20%

[ January 23, 2006, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Lars]

When we're talking amphibious shipping, what exactly are we talking about anyway?

The troops for Norway, some were smuggled in on freighters, the rest were decked in on destroyers. Crete, Deippe and others, pretty much the same. Not really going to stand out as amphibious shipping as such. It's not like we're talking LST's with hordes of LCA's here. Only the US and Brits built those.

So you'd have to tailor the tip-off to the size of the invasion. The only one you'd end up finding out about is the one you were expecting anyway.

And which countries would entrench? Everybody in range? Some of them? Just the one?

[JerseyJohn]

Lars,

Let's not get worked up.

Norway isn't the scale these guys are talking about. That was what? 10-15,000 men including those who were brought in by air?

What I'm talking about is the sort of thing I've seen in SC-1 were on the first turn a country is at war it's got FIVE damn armies being landed on it's shores.

To begin with, that sort of invasion shouldn't even be possible, on the first day of Normandy and all the other large scale invasions the beaches were only hit by a few divisions, the rest being brought in once a path was cleared for them.

But we're talking in game terms.

We're it's been common to see 500,000 and more troops suddenly plopped ashore on the first turn of a DOW. It was so bad that nearly everyone adapted house rules to cover it. We're trying to get around having to cover it that way.

And normally a Norway type operation wouldn't have a chance of working, that would need a special rule, which I once proposed for SC-1 but the response was so childish that I said, screw it, which is what I'm about to say here as well.

Anyway, you guys work it out. I'm on the verge of getting pissed off at that response or yours so screw it, I really don't give a #$%$$#!

BTW -- for the record I said a long time ago that only the United States even had the capacity to launch large scale amphibious operations, said it many times in many different ways, but alas, it's babble till your blue in the face time at SC.

Keep it.

[Edwin P.]

Lars,I would give each neutral nation within range a chance to entrench. Why? They don't know which neutral nation will be targeted.

Example: Three (3) German amphibious transports are within invasion range of Norway and Sweden. Norway and Sweden would each have a base 3% chance to entrench. One, both or neither might entrench.

If you are using the optional country specific mobilization modifier that I proposed then Norway (x1) might have a 3% to entrench and Sweden (x4) a 12% to entrench.

JerseyJohn - what was your idea for handling a situation like Norway?

PS: You could modify this idea to say that if Amphibious or Land units are within landing range the percentage change would also be affected by surface naval units within striking range.

Thus would reflect intel detecting the buildup of a large invasion force at sea. Perhaps a fishing boat sighted the ships at sea.

Thus: 3 Amphibious Units + 5 Naval Ships in strike range = 8% x Country Modifier (for Italy its 5) = 40% for Entrenchment Bonus.

Question: Will any of this have any effect on the outcome of a battle? or the war? Perhaps it is not needed.

[ January 23, 2006, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Lars]

Well, don't get worked up JerseyJohn, didn't mean it as a personal attack. Was just pointing out how this whole thing would (and did) go off the rails.

Question though. This seems like it's only a PBEM issue. If somebody dumped five armies on you on the first turn of a DOW, why didn't you have five armies to dump on his home territory while he was busy with his little favorite tactic the next time around? Gamey is as gamey does.

[JerseyJohn]

Lars,

Okay, I've taken my medication and am calmed down again.

To me it isn't a question of doing it back to the other guy, it's more like it shouldn't be possible at all.

-- The argument used in favor of this system is that those half million troops would have been landed during the duration of the turn (two weeks, whatever).

Anyway, I'm speaking mainly from SC experience and am not overly familiar with the new systems involving these things (only the play testers are, I'd say) and can only cite the things from SC-1 that I hated and would like to see cut out of SC-2.

In terms of this discussion, I think it's safe to say that we're talking about full amphibious operations and not something like hiding troops in freightors as was the situation with Norway. Aside from which a bit reason the Norway plan didn't leak was because it was helped out by Quisling and his bunch within Norway itself. Though, even so, there were some shore batteries that opened up and some German troops that were lost at sea (I think the heavy cruiser Blucher (?) was the main loss of life).

-- Regarding the Crete operation, most of the troops that were in the ferry operation were intercepted and killed by naval gunfire.

Edwin

I've just looked through fifteen back pages of the SC forum (searched Norway) and couldn't find it.

What it amounted to was this:

Germany would set aside three corps and an equivalent amount of MPPs (representing casualties and naval losses) and hit the special rule option.

The following turn one of the German corps would appear in Copenhagen,

-- a turn later another would appear in Oslo and

-- -- a turn after that another would appear in Bergen.

The German player would need to commit 3 corps to occupation duty, pay the MPP cost for an additional three and would recieve those two countries in exchange.

The operation couldn't be initiated if either side had already DoW'd Norway or Denmark.

I still think it has merit in SC-1.

[Lars]

Ah, I see. And I agree. Problem is we're stuck with Corps as the smallest unit. Armies and Panzer Armies in an historical invasion? Fogetabodit.

My favorite is the Italians launching an amphibious invasion of Greece. Hell, that never even happened. But it's a lot easier than fighting your way in over the mountains. Pretty much a one turn deal.

And, let's face it, at the end of the day, the outcome is about the same. All those MPPs spent reflect, to my mind anyway, naval losses and whatnot for Norway, Italian incompetence for Greece.

Btw, like your special rule solution, even though I hate special rules.

[Edwin P.]

Your special rule would have been a big help to the AI in Sc1. I like it.

I assume that if the Allies landed a corps in Bergan before the Axis unit appears then the Bergan Axis Corps would appear on the Norwegian Mine hex or elsewhere in Norway.

[JerseyJohn]

Lars, Edwin,

Glad you guys like that special rule idea -- yes, the MPP cost idea was with naval and air losses in mind. Of course the Axis player would have the option of not using it and conquering the place conventionally, which would probably have been cheaper.

Edwin, I'm not sure what would have been done in that situation.

Some possibilities:

1) Once the Axis chooses the option, Allied units can't enter or occupy any of those three cities. If they're already in one of them they'd be moved to an adjacent hex.

or ...

2) The Allied player can choose to have them appear in the UK the following turn, simulating the evacuation from Narvik and several other ports including one I've never been able to spell.

Agree about special rules, I'm not crazy about them either, but in this case I agree with Edwin's assessment, it would be a simple thing to program the AI to use something like this.

-- If the playing response is an Allied preemptive invasion of Norway, that's not far from what happened historically; I mean, British and French troops were actually on transports and at the Fjords, the Germans only beat them one day or so!

[Sombra]

Well right now I would be happy, if the 2attack bonus" readiness wouldn´t be as high as in SC1 .

As I said before 100% dropping of a boat readiness but if you are defending in Paris fully supplied ,entrenched your readiness is 67% for example????

If you want to support an invasion drop a HQ in the first turn to supply your troops for an attack in the 2nd. turn. Would although eliminate these cheesey conquests of Greece, Egypt and the benefit of mayor landing operations on rusian soil.

[jon_j_rambo]

@SomeBra --- How about a lowered bonus for German troops for using inferior weapons & men in 1944 relative to the United States? The Germans were using old men & boys as the BuntaLand was getting headcracked in the name of Justice! The United States also has the best morale & rally ability then their Bunta counterparts.

and the American response,"NUTS"

[Sombra]

#Rambo, this game is a "what if " game. What if Germany had invested in the right areas of weapon development, not lost nearly all its trained troops in Rusia? Would the US still had such an easy victory?

The results of the 2nd world war should be possible with the decisons the player will do (US player investing in weapon tech etc.)

The situation at the end of the war was the result of the developments earlier in the war, not an inborn ability of the US troops. Though give the US a big production capacity? Yes, sure. Are the US troops superior to the German troops by default? No

Speaking in the SC terms. sometimes due to a botched Barbarossa the Allies can walk over german troops in France without nearly any resistance. Are the units worse then their US counterparts? No ,simply the experienced troops are missing, the mps to replace looses are missing. The Allies gain usally air superiority etc. But you know what happens if the germans play Rusia right and the allied player botches his job there. The Allies have a very hard time in France or will never mount a succesful invasion in the west.

D- Day was launched when Germany was nearly exhausted and in the West mostly was not well defended still the "D-day" was a huge risk and costly for the Allies. As soon as the Allies had their beachhead established it was all over for Germany. In SC terms I would like to see that a landing would be much more difficult

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Lars:

Last thing I want to see is SC2 turn into 3rd Reich, with umpteen million "special" rules that nobody can ever be arsed to look up anyway.

hm you mean "Larsed to look up anyway" I guess...

[Kuniworth]

I'd say pit Patton's 3rd Army against the soviet 8th Guards army(62nd army from stalingrad) and see the reds walk right over.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

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

Last thing I want to see is SC2 turn into 3rd Reich, with umpteen million "special" rules that nobody can ever be arsed to look up anyway.

hm you mean "Larsed to look up anyway" I guess... </font>