Amphibious Landings

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Amphibious Landings

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 >> Amphibious Landings

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Amphibious Landings - 11/22/2011 8:20:38 AM

Chris21wen

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline

Can you make an amphibious landing at a none base hex or is that deemed bad form. I've never tried it before but in some instances it makes tactical sense.

Post #: 1

RE: Amphibious Landings - 11/22/2011 8:32:26 AM

kevin_hx

Posts: 156
Joined: 1/20/2008
From: China
Status: offline

and then ?

(in reply to Chris21wen)

Post #: 2

RE: Amphibious Landings - 11/22/2011 9:15:00 AM

koniu

Posts: 2763
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline

You can land, but in many PBEM`s players have HR against it.

(in reply to kevin_hx)

Post #: 3

RE: Amphibious Landings - 11/22/2011 10:27:21 AM

Itdepends

Posts: 937
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

Since you can't prep for it- disruption and disabled devices will be very high. But otherwise- I'd agree that it's bad form unless agreed with your opponent.

(in reply to koniu)

Post #: 4

RE: Amphibious Landings - 11/22/2011 10:27:44 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Well...in many WW II instances, landings were indeed into "non-base" hexes. I don't personally have anything against it, since supply problems can be difficult before capturing a port.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to koniu)

Post #: 5

RE: Amphibious Landings - 11/22/2011 11:32:41 AM

Chris21wen

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline

It's against the AI.

Situation is I'm on the verge of capturing Rangoon and Pegu but I do not have suffient BFs in North Burma to quickly get to one for air ops without leaving the bases further north short of AV. My plan was to load up some BFs and transport them to hex 54,49 which is a road 4 hexes north of Rangoon. It wasn't an invasion just a landing so what's peoples thoughts on this in PBEM.

Historically I cannot think of any amphibious invasion that did directly target a 'base'. Would be a stupid idea, actually I can, Dieppe when the Canadians took heavy losses. But that was a trial run for the real thing as no one knew what to expect. Probably why they didn't do one later in the war.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 6

RE: Amphibious Landings - 11/22/2011 12:41:04 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

I have never understood this house rule.

So you guys are limiting yourselves to NEVER invading a dot hex that hasn't been developed into a base yet?

That means Lunga will NEVER be invaded in PBEM game?

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Chris21wen)

Post #: 7

RE: Amphibious Landings - 11/22/2011 1:06:28 PM

rubisco

Posts: 179
Joined: 8/6/2007
Status: offline

The house rule allows landings at undeveloped dot bases (such as Lunga), but not at non-dot-non-base hexes.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 8

RE: Amphibious Landings - 11/22/2011 1:19:22 PM

Itdepends

Posts: 937
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

Just limits the potential landing sites- e.g. instead of needing to garrison every hex of coastline only the bases/dot bases are garrisoned.

(in reply to rubisco)

Post #: 9

RE: Amphibious Landings - 11/22/2011 1:54:30 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rubisco

The house rule allows landings at undeveloped dot bases (such as Lunga), but not at non-dot-non-base hexes.

never once have I seen a PBEM player make that clarification regarding that HR, I have always assumed they were limiting themselves to never invading dot hexes which made no sense whatsoever.........

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to rubisco)

Post #: 10

RE: Amphibious Landings - 11/22/2011 1:59:04 PM

USSAmerica

Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: rubisco

The house rule allows landings at undeveloped dot bases (such as Lunga), but not at non-dot-non-base hexes.

never once have I seen a PBEM player make that clarification regarding that HR, I have always assumed they were limiting themselves to never invading dot hexes which made no sense whatsoever.........

I don't use this HR, but it seems to me that everyone who does use it assumes dot hexes are included as base hexes.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 11

RE: Amphibious Landings - 11/22/2011 2:30:27 PM

bush

Posts: 444
Joined: 10/30/2007
From: san jose, ca
Status: offline

I think against the AI you should steer clear of this as it is one more tactic the AI will not do to you. However, against a human, that would need to be discussed. I would say this, though, many of what show up as dot hexes in our sim-world is because IRL it had some significance. If forces would have landed one "hex" further IRL then that would be where the dot base showed up. So I guess I would argue in favor of allowing these type of invasions.

(in reply to USSAmerica)

Post #: 12

RE: Amphibious Landings - 11/22/2011 2:31:08 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: rubisco

The house rule allows landings at undeveloped dot bases (such as Lunga), but not at non-dot-non-base hexes.

never once have I seen a PBEM player make that clarification regarding that HR, I have always assumed they were limiting themselves to never invading dot hexes which made no sense whatsoever.........

I don't use this HR, but it seems to me that everyone who does use it assumes dot hexes are included as base hexes.

My assumption as well. With a 40nm map size, there's dot hexes aplenty to invade, so the importance of this HR with AE is, in my opinion, lessened.

_____________________________

(in reply to USSAmerica)

Post #: 13

RE: Amphibious Landings - 11/22/2011 2:54:44 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: rubisco

The house rule allows landings at undeveloped dot bases (such as Lunga), but not at non-dot-non-base hexes.

never once have I seen a PBEM player make that clarification regarding that HR, I have always assumed they were limiting themselves to never invading dot hexes which made no sense whatsoever.........

No, I think pretty much everyone plays by this HR. Dot and base hexes only. Of course in real life non dot hexes could have been invaded. But to reflect that many places both dot and non were really not suitable for amphibious operations, this HR helps keep that in balance with reality.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 14

RE: Amphibious Landings - 11/22/2011 3:17:42 PM

witpqs

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

There were extensive discussions in this forum about invading non-base/dot hexes and eventually the developers became involved in those discussions. You can search for them to see the whole thing, but the bottom line is basically:

- Of course players can have any HR they choose.
- The developers specifically looked at the issue of such invasions before release and did not/do not consider them to be a problem. Reasons?
- - There are penalties for such landings, as noted in posts above.
- - Terrain that is truly impassable to such invasions has been made so on the game map. That is, certain types of terrain do not allow unloading, appropriate hex sides have been made impassable, etc.
- - Various sections of terrain that popular lore has as impassable were even looked at in detail during the forum discussion using tools such as Google Earth and seen to have many, many passable areas not so different from the beach exits at Normandy. The difference, of course, is that Normandy was heavily defended whereas the landing areas we are discussing are undefended.

All that being said, I repeat that players are free to HR as they wish/reach agreement. The developers confirmed that the game (AE) does take into account the possibility of such landings and there are appropriate limitations (as noted above).

IMO many people harken back to their experience with the issue in WITP, which they might have found less than satisfying. The developers have confirmed that things are different now. I feel certain that a player will only contemplate making such landings for very, very special cases as the price is high. It is still up to the individual players, of course.

Even with no HR against such landings and two players who are each game to use them, I predict the odds of seeing even one in any given game to be less than 50%. That's my guess.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 15

RE: Amphibious Landings - 11/22/2011 3:19:19 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: rubisco

The house rule allows landings at undeveloped dot bases (such as Lunga), but not at non-dot-non-base hexes.

never once have I seen a PBEM player make that clarification regarding that HR, I have always assumed they were limiting themselves to never invading dot hexes which made no sense whatsoever.........

No, I think pretty much everyone plays by this HR. Dot and base hexes only. Of course in real life non dot hexes could have been invaded. But to reflect that many places both dot and non were really not suitable for amphibious operations, this HR helps keep that in balance with reality.

I know our posts crossed, but in the discussions on this forum about these landings, Andrew Brown confirmed that they did not put bases/dots at all feasible landings sites.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 16