Landing in a non-base hex

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Landing in a non-base hex

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Landing in a non-base hex

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 3:43:20 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

This issue came up in our game when I landed in a non-base hex. I'm wondering what other people think about landing in a non-base hex (with a large number of troops, not just a fragment). For example, should the Japanese be able to land in the hex next to Darwin and walk overland to take it, and thus avoid the CD guns? I think yes, my opponent thinks no.

It seems to me that this kind of this happened a lot. Armies didn't land directly on top of fortified coastlines unless they had to - they would land at a quieter area and move in along the coast or inland. However, my opponent thinks this isn't handled well by the game system, and I am concisous that this could be a possibility. For example, I know the game system dosen't handle very small units well (like fragments) in these kind of situations.

I'm curious what other people think about this and why. If not, what about the game system handles it poorly? Why is it unrealistic, ahistroic, or otherwise gamey?

Post #: 1

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 4:04:36 AM

kaleun

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline

I think it should be a base or a dot (possible base) hex.
The limitations of the land combat system limit the ability to react to an off base (or dot) landing and besides not all locations were adequate for amphibious landings and this is not represented in the game.

_____________________________

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 2

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 4:13:48 AM

eMonticello

Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline

You mean this big gun is preventing you from landing at Darwin?

_____________________________

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 3

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 4:21:09 AM

seydlitz_slith

Posts: 2036
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Danville, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: eMonticello

You mean this big gun is preventing you from landing at Darwin?

Most likely it is.....guns like that will sink Japanese battleships in one turn of combat.

(in reply to eMonticello)

Post #: 4

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 4:21:16 AM

Jzanes

Posts: 471
Joined: 11/18/2004
Status: offline

I am rader's opponent on this issue. I also posted on this. you can find my thread in the war room

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2445940

(in reply to eMonticello)

Post #: 5

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 4:21:44 AM

Oldguard1970

Posts: 578
Joined: 7/19/2006
From: Hiawassee, GA
Status: offline

The game design has to make trade-offs. The land combat options are limited. In addition, the geography cannot reflect actual landing concerns everywhere.

Accordingly, I agree that landing should be made at bases or dot hexes. That forces us to achieve substantial air and sea superiority before landing. That is a good simulation element.

_____________________________

"Rangers Lead the Way!"

(in reply to eMonticello)

Post #: 6

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 4:23:50 AM

seydlitz_slith

Posts: 2036
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Danville, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

This issue came up in our game when I landed in a non-base hex. I'm wondering what other people think about landing in a non-base hex (with a large number of troops, not just a fragment). For example, should the Japanese be able to land in the hex next to Darwin and walk overland to take it, and thus avoid the CD guns? I think yes, my opponent thinks no.

It seems to me that this kind of this happened a lot. Armies didn't land directly on top of fortified coastlines unless they had to - they would land at a quieter area and move in along the coast or inland. However, my opponent thinks this isn't handled well by the game system, and I am concisous that this could be a possibility. For example, I know the game system dosen't handle very small units well (like fragments) in these kind of situations.

I'm curious what other people think about this and why. If not, what about the game system handles it poorly? Why is it unrealistic, ahistroic, or otherwise gamey?

In some places there is no alternative other than to land in a non-base hex especially if it is a decently fortified base and all of the nearby hexes are non-base hexes. Several of the Soviet ports come to mind.

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 7

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 4:40:56 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

In some places there is no alternative other than to land in a non-base hex especially if it is a decently fortified base and all of the nearby hexes are non-base hexes. Several of the Soviet ports come to mind.

These are exactly the places we are talking about also. The Soviet ports are murder on anything that tries to land on them. It seems like, faced with this, they would land upshore and avoid the guns.

(in reply to seydlitz_slith)

Post #: 8

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 5:10:02 AM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

The problem is not just 'getting on shore', it's establishing a base on shore that can bring supplies in from ships to the units up from. This usually means some sort of road, trailway, or terrain path that facilitates getting the supplies from the sea to the front lines. There's a reason the Allies didn't put their troops or supplies on the southeastern tip of Guadalcanal and march to Henderson - there's no way it could be done in any feasible amount of time... but due to the limitations of the engine, it's only a few days march for divisions and all their supplies for a month - to make this march.

So, imho, the dot bases (and up) are the "locations" that have the terrain that allows the infrastructure to support troops on the frontlines.

There's a reason those Sov forts were built as such and where they were... and one was so they can't be flanked by infantry landing 20 miles "up beach".

Most hr's are against landings at any non-dot or base hex.

_____________________________

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 9

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 5:56:18 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

I think it's fine landing in any hex. Terrain does matter and you can not land successfully just anywhere.

Also, as far as "...limitations of the land combat system limit the ability to react to an off base (or dot) landing..." this is off the mark. If an invasion takes place 46 miles away well, yeah, your LCU's ability to react will be limited - by distance! It is the laws of physics in action. You don't get the 'ability to react' just because your opponent did something. The game is supposed to be trying to model reality. When a landing took place 46 or 92 miles away one side couldn't call "Foul! I can't react to that".

I think restricting landings to only dots/bases is itself a gamey limitation. I simply do not believe that every suitable landing site has been given a base.

YMMV

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 10

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 6:17:06 AM

Roger Neilson II

Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline

I think its all about game design, but I think its also about suitability of landing areas and looking at WW2 so many landings were forced to be in one place because it was the 'only' viable' landing area. I do regard it as wrong that a landing can be made where the game has decided its not possible to develop any sort of facilities - if the geography is rong then thats a game design feature and not the fault of the game player. I can't reconcile being able to land anywhere with my experience of being unable to embark tropps anywhere - if a bunch of half starved and desperate guys can't jump in the sea and swim to a boat then how come a fullt operational unit can go ashore at that point?

In theory I can drop any troops I like off the side of a boat and lets some of them make it to shore, when they get there will they have the equipment and supplies to fight?

Roger

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 11

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 8:11:58 AM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
If an invasion takes place 46 miles away well, yeah, your LCU's ability to react will be limited - by distance!

Well the 21st Panzer Division saw some of its elements travel well over 20km on June 6 and launch attacks against the landings. The armor elements of the division even drove all the way to the beach between the Canadians at Juno and British at Sword. It was a command decision to pull them back later in the afternoon.

That said the criticism of the Germans on June 6 was they were slow to react, historians pretty much concur they could have done a lot more if units had been released earlier in the day. So responding to an invasion 40 or so miles away should not take 4+ days as it would take in game depending on terrain.

The land portion of the game is the weakest part of the simulation. Players simply do not have their historical capabilities on land in this game and the scale of the hexes makes tactical moves like landing up the coast less than a military plausibility in this game. No one ever landed over 40 miles from their D-Day targets� ever. Taking advantage of the games land weaknesses by landing in non-base hexes is gamey in my opinion.

Jim

P.S. The invasion code is specifically designed to simulate landings and the extra casualties units would face as they come ashore in a disorganized state in the face of hostile forces. Landing unopposed 40 miles away and then marching to the target is an exploit to bypass the invasion routines in game pure and simple. You can�t point to a single example in history that could possibly back up such a move, because historically any reasonable landing site was defended. In game every hex is a possible landing site, that isn't realistic at all.

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 4/22/2010 8:29:32 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 12

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 9:48:51 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

My reaction is that you can build a base anywhere you can land a significant force. Hence, you should only land at potential base hexes. Of course, that means all potential base hexes should be dot hexes or better.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 13

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 1:17:21 PM

morganbj

Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

... No one ever landed over 40 miles from their D-Day targets� ever....

No, but they did land more than 40 miles from their campaign targets -- a lot. The d-day objectives (or targets, as you say) were simply those immediate land areas that were required to secure the beach, including those that restricted enemy reinforcement and movement. I've landed in non-dot hexes in AE (e.g., west of Rabaul) and marched to my ultimate objective. It takes a lot of time and resources, but it's sometimes better than hitting a major objective head-on with a direct invasion. With AKA and APA, my heavy equipment can join they fray. Without them, well, sorry, no artillery, tanks, etc.

I agree that the land model is quite rough, but for a strategic game, I think it works out well enough. Would I like it to be better? Absolutely. But, I know the chances are that are between slim and none, and strongly leaning toward none.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 14

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 2:19:20 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

There's a reason the Allies didn't put their troops or supplies on the southeastern tip of Guadalcanal and march to Henderson - there's no way it could be done in any feasible amount of time... but due to the limitations of the engine, it's only a few days march for divisions and all their supplies for a month - to make this march.

Isn't this because the Japanese had no shore defenses, few troops inland (mostly Korean labourers I thought), and the Americans wanted to take the AF as soon as possible? Of course landing up the shore and marching in would have taken more time and presented logistical problems, but it certainly would have been possible. It does take a long time to march through bad terrain in AE, and it is hard to land heavy equipment over the beach.

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 15

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 3:05:05 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I think it's fine landing in any hex. Terrain does matter and you can not land successfully just anywhere.

Also, as far as "...limitations of the land combat system limit the ability to react to an off base (or dot) landing..." this is off the mark. If an invasion takes place 46 miles away well, yeah, your LCU's ability to react will be limited - by distance! It is the laws of physics in action. You don't get the 'ability to react' just because your opponent did something. The game is supposed to be trying to model reality. When a landing took place 46 or 92 miles away one side couldn't call "Foul! I can't react to that".

I think restricting landings to only dots/bases is itself a gamey limitation. I simply do not believe that every suitable landing site has been given a base.

YMMV

I agree... I've read countless times here about how the Japanese never ever landed on opposed beaches (when in fact they did on occassion)...now someone decides to conduct an unopposed landing and behold the howls of protest.

Nevermind the fact that the landing units now have no base from which to base air or store supplies and it will take a week plus to march to the nearest base...all the while undergoing air attack.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 16

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 3:09:22 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

P.S. The invasion code is specifically designed to simulate landings and the extra casualties units would face as they come ashore in a disorganized state in the face of hostile forces. Landing unopposed 40 miles away and then marching to the target is an exploit to bypass the invasion routines in game pure and simple. You can�t point to a single example in history that could possibly back up such a move, because historically any reasonable landing site was defended. In game every hex is a possible landing site, that isn't realistic at all.

Already did several months ago ...Barge Invasions ...when the Japanese conducted an unopposed landing from barges on the west coast of Malaya to bypass the front line ...

< Message edited by treespider -- 4/22/2010 3:12:31 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 17

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 3:15:57 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

... No one ever landed over 40 miles from their D-Day targets� ever....

No, but they did land more than 40 miles from their campaign targets -- a lot. The d-day objectives (or targets, as you say) were simply those immediate land areas that were required to secure the beach, including those that restricted enemy reinforcement and movement. I've landed in non-dot hexes in AE (e.g., west of Rabaul) and marched to my ultimate objective. It takes a lot of time and resources, but it's sometimes better than hitting a major objective head-on with a direct invasion. With AKA and APA, my heavy equipment can join they fray. Without them, well, sorry, no artillery, tanks, etc.

I agree that the land model is quite rough, but for a strategic game, I think it works out well enough. Would I like it to be better? Absolutely. But, I know the chances are that are between slim and none, and strongly leaning toward none.

Actually thinking about this...would Cherbourg be considered the immediate "base" objective of the Normandy landings?

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to morganbj)

Post #: 18

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 3:29:59 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I think it's fine landing in any hex. Terrain does matter and you can not land successfully just anywhere.

Also, as far as "...limitations of the land combat system limit the ability to react to an off base (or dot) landing..." this is off the mark. If an invasion takes place 46 miles away well, yeah, your LCU's ability to react will be limited - by distance! It is the laws of physics in action. You don't get the 'ability to react' just because your opponent did something. The game is supposed to be trying to model reality. When a landing took place 46 or 92 miles away one side couldn't call "Foul! I can't react to that".

I think restricting landings to only dots/bases is itself a gamey limitation. I simply do not believe that every suitable landing site has been given a base.

YMMV

I don't play PBEM, but I agree with you here. I dislike the idea of HRs in general, but this one seems, well, incredibly wimpy.

If your opponent is willing to accept the benefit of avoiding CD and accepts the detriment of time and fatigue to land over there and march over here, that's his call. If you see him doing that, stop him. That's what the navy is for, and the flyboys. If you see him doing it (you are air searching, right?) his movement delay gives you time to move forces by land or air transport, to juice fort building, to click up supply, and to send in more planes. That's war. Restricting landings to base hexes and dots removes strategic mobility from the attackers' toolbag, and by that I mean the allies' toolbag. The US spent billions developing and building assets to allow attacks into unimproved beachheads and to supply the troops there. They did it many, many times. Yes, there are places with cliffs and the like where there is no beach. But in the PTO they are few. Jungle right up to the sand was not a problem.

CD installations were built to protect industry and housing from direct attack. No CD network in history ever stopped a determined invader. Not Hitler's Atlantic Wall, not the Maginot Line (work with me here), not the USA's coastal network pre-Civil War. If the other guy wants to come ashore and is serious enough about it, he can. It's up to the defender to stop him at sea, or not to let him off the beach.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 19

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 3:34:29 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Actually thinking about this...would Cherbourg be considered the immediate "base" objective of the Normandy landings?

No Cherbourg was a campaign objective. There were 5 or 6 smaller ports that were the D-day objectives.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 20

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 3:43:27 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Actually thinking about this...would Cherbourg be considered the immediate "base" objective of the Normandy landings?

No Cherbourg was a campaign objective. There were 5 or 6 smaller ports that were the D-day objectives.

Jim

Ahhh I always thought the immediate "base" objectives were Caen and Cherbourg, I was not aware of those 5 or 6 smaller ports...wonder why they bothered with the mulberries?

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 21

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 3:46:55 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Actually thinking about this...would Cherbourg be considered the immediate "base" objective of the Normandy landings?

No Cherbourg was a campaign objective. There were 5 or 6 smaller ports that were the D-day objectives.

Jim

Wasn't Caen one? And it took a month to capture?

Isn't Normandy among the best examples of "landing up the coast" in WWII? There was no hope of building an operating base or large airfield at the beachhead. If WWII had been AE the Allies would have been forced to sail into Caen harbor and accept whatever horrible casualties ensued, "just because."

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 22

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 3:58:59 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Actually thinking about this...would Cherbourg be considered the immediate "base" objective of the Normandy landings?

No Cherbourg was a campaign objective. There were 5 or 6 smaller ports that were the D-day objectives.

Jim

Wasn't Caen one? And it took a month to capture?

Isn't Normandy among the best examples of "landing up the coast" in WWII? There was no hope of building an operating base or large airfield at the beachhead. If WWII had been AE the Allies would have been forced to sail into Caen harbor and accept whatever horrible casualties ensued, "just because."

What was Omaha beach then? An unopposed landing up the coast?

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 23

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 4:12:33 PM

PMCN

Posts: 625
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline

There were no "port" objectives for D-day. The allies knew that they could not capture an intact working port so they brought their own in the mulberries. The overall goal; however, was the capture of a port. Cherbourg would have been ideal but it took several months to get into operation and eventually Antwerp was captured and that still took several months to resume normal operation. Until then the temporary Mulberries kept a lot of the invading armies supplied. They also had an underwater pipeline to bring fuel across.

The beaches for hundreds of miles of coast were studied in detail including commando raids to collect rock-soil-sand samples. The actual choice of landing sites for the invasion were made based on a variety of criteria. Another thing that was learned from Dieppe.

The planning for Overlord was upwards of 2 years. The allies could not just land anywhere, the larger the force you are talking about the more true this is. And Overlord would have been outright impossible without the Mulberries, and the storm that disabled some of them, had they not been brought back into operational status would have caused the invasion to fail. You can't support that many men by landing supplies on a beach.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 24

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 4:50:38 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely

There were no "port" objectives for D-day.�

Well off the top of my head there was Arromanches and Port-en-Bessin. Those two were probably the largest of the small D-Day objective ports. All of the small ports (I think there were 5 or 6 of them) along the coast served the landings, but allied planners knew they weren�t large enough to supply the invasions adequately, so they built the Mulberries. In WitP terms the small ports would be 1's with Port-en-Bessin and Arromanches perhaps being 2's.

Had they planned for and expected to take Cherbourg any time soon after the invasion, there would have been no need for Mulberries. But they knew it was going to take some time to get into Cherbourg, so they didn�t count on the port facilities in their planning.

As to not building an airfield at Normandy� The allies had something like 17 airfields in service within the first month. Later the number was double or triple that. The main problem was getting enough aviation fuel ashore, not in building more air strips.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to PMCN)

Post #: 25

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 5:13:50 PM

FrankE

Posts: 10
Joined: 10/29/2009
Status: offline

Where is it written that players can't defend a non-base hex? If you're that worried about it, entrench some troops there. It seems to me that both sides went out of their way to hit lightly defended beaches whenever possible so it should be allowed in game.

About the only change that I'd like to see is a minimum disruption penalty if you do invade a non-base hex to simulate the chaos of landing in the middle of nowhere. Something along the lines of at least 30% disruption for non-mechanized troops and 50% for anything mechanized.

< Message edited by FrankE -- 4/22/2010 5:14:29 PM >

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 26

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 5:50:53 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

What was Omaha beach then? An unopposed landing up the coast?

Omaha was the hardest of the five. Gold, Juno, and Sword were cakewalks compared to trying a direct assault on a developed harbor.

Even Omaha had advantages over a harbor--width, ability of close-gunfire support to get within 2000 yards of the beach and stay mobile, and open maneuvering room just behind the beach. Not to mention the ability to be pounded by air just beofre the invasion without blowing up valuable assets you wanted to use yourself, later.

But Omaha also had the advantage not found in the game of being a logistics pipe of monumnetal size. That is the single most daunting facet of the mechanic in the game, and the best argument for allowing the attacker to do non-base assaults if he's feeling lucky. Or desperate.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 4/22/2010 5:56:32 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 27

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 5:53:03 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankE

Where is it written that players can't defend a non-base hex?

The problem with landing anywhere is places like the cliffs of the great Australian Bight, which would be absolutely impossible to land 1 man at let alone an invasion, are easily accessible in game because a hex is just another hex in game.

Historically no coastal defenses were needed along that huge strip of cliff face, so no military units exist to defend it. You have to pull something from somewhere else if you want to try and defend it and you then leave that somewhere else location undefended so you can defend something you shouldn�t have to. Historical OOBs are reflections of historical realities and based on actual places that could have been invaded. Landing anywhere there is a hex in game is pure fantasy.

This is supposed to be a game based on WWII and should reflect historical realities, if the designers feel a certain hex should be able to support landings, they should make it a dot hex.

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 4/22/2010 5:54:42 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to FrankE)

Post #: 28

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 5:54:37 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely

There were no "port" objectives for D-day.� The allies knew that they could not capture an intact working port so they brought their own in the mulberries.� The overall goal; however, was the capture of a port.� Cherbourg would have been ideal but it took several months to get into operation and eventually Antwerp was captured and that still took several months to resume normal operation.� Until then the temporary Mulberries kept a lot of the invading armies supplied.� They also had an underwater pipeline to bring fuel across.

"Sword Beach
SWORD BEACH was the objective of 3rd (British) Infantry Division. They were to advance inland as far as Caen, and line up with British Airborne forces east of the Orne River/Caen Canal. The Orne River bridges had been seized in late at night on the 5th of June by a glider-borne reinforced company commanded by Maj. John Howard. As at the other beaches, British forces penetrated quite a ways inland after breaking the opposition at water's edge. Unfortunately, the objective of Caen was probably asking too much of a single infantry division, especially given the traffic jams and resistance encountered further inland. 1st Special Service (Commando) brigade commanded by Lord Lovat, linked up in the morning with Howard's force at Pegasus bridge on the British left. Fierce opposition from the 2lst Panzer and later the 12th SS Panzer division prevented the British from reaching Caen on the 6th. Indeed, Caen was not taken until late June."

http://www.army.mil/d-day/beaches.html

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to PMCN)

Post #: 29

RE: Landing in a non-base hex - 4/22/2010 5:58:06 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankE

Where is it written that players can't defend a non-base hex?

The problem with landing anywhere is places like the cliffs of the great Australian Bight, which would be absolutely impossible to land 1 man at let alone an invasion, are easily accessible in game because a hex is just another hex in game.

Historically no coastal defenses were needed along that huge strip of cliff face, so no military units exist to defend it. You have to pull something from somewhere else if you want to try and defend it and you then leave that somewhere else location undefended so you can defend something you shouldn�t have to. Historical OOBs are reflections of historical realities and based on actual places that could have been invaded. Landing anywhere there is a hex in game is pure fantasy.

This is supposed to be a game based on WWII and should reflect historical realities, if the designers feel a certain hex should be able to support landings, they should make it a dot hex.

Jim

You defend it with ships, not troops. AE is as much or more a naval game as one of ground-pounding.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Landing in a non-base hex

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

1.422

Slitherine

Landing in a non-base hex