Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

"deep" amphibious landings too easy

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> "deep" amphibious landings too easy Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
"deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/15/2014 12:17:53 AM   
No New Messages
mariandavid
Matrix Veteran


 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline
Now I understand that a few games and rather more turns does not equate to absolute fact - but am getting suspicious of the lack of penalty for amphibious invasions carried out far beyond land fighter cover. Obviously a South of France invasion in later 1944 with lots of escort carriers and hardly a LW unit within bomber, let along fighter range is easy.

But is seems that landing, maybe near Rome, or not far from Salerno when the nearest fighters are still in North Africa or Malta does not seem to generate the naval loss rates that one would expect. Whereas in the real world the fundamental concern of commanders was that the landing beaches be covered by fighters. Have no answer of course as yet!
Post #: 1
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/15/2014 1:00:05 AM   
No New Messages
Baelfiin
Matrix Legion of Merit



Posts: 2978
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline
Check my AAR A pleasure cruise to northern Italy. Some changes coming to fix sea attrition in heavily contested sea hexes.

If I was the German player and saw some sneaky Allied player landing out of effective fighter range where my Luftwaffe can get at them... I would be licking my chops.

Its real easy to get in. Getting out is a whole different story.

_____________________________

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha
The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.

(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 2
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/15/2014 2:57:49 AM   
No New Messages
mariandavid
Matrix Veteran


 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline
Hope you are right - that was not my experience: Land far enough away from the main front (and from the main Axis airfields) on at least two adjacent beachheads from which at least two prospective airbases can be easily (one turn) reached, ensure that at least four divisions/brigades are in place. Accept one turn of air attack, transfer fighters and sit tight. Now maybe in my cases the AI behaved usually (I hope so!).

In any case glad that attrition increases will fix part of the problem.

(in reply to Baelfiin)
Post #: 3
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/15/2014 3:09:43 AM   
No New Messages
Joel Billings
Moderator



Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
It's one thing against a good human player and another against the AI. At the moment, people looking to play against the AI and have a more competitive game should consider using a house rule where they don't invade more than 30 hexes away from an Allied airfield. In the first patch coming later this week, we've made Italian surrender in July and August less likely, but we have not yet looked at the issue of shipping losses when invading through enemy controlled sea hexes. It's possible this will need to be tweaked some, but I'm betting against us being able to get something into the first patch for this as it will take some additional analysis and testing and we just don't have the time before the Matrix holiday shutdown.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 4
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/15/2014 8:22:02 AM   
No New Messages
Smirfy
Matrix Elite Guard


 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline

You have to be very careful with this in reality Germany were absoulutely useless in predicting Allied landings, Torch, Anvil, Husky, Anzio ,D Day, Slapstick, Baytown and even Salerno. Kesselring believed a landing against Rome wholly fesable. The Allies ran some numerous diversionary operations like "The man who never was" , "Fortitude" and in the case of Italy large numbers of Troops were involved in disarming Italians, I am not sure how much of that is modelled in game. Germany simply could not second guess which amphibious capabilities the Allies hand. You narrow down where the Allies can realistically land you have to narrow down realistically how much the Axis can defend. Of course you have to protect player form their gamey dark side but one has to be careful also.

So far in Game I have units routing from a besieged Palermo to the Mainland (????) A PG Division dug in in Messina with abundant flak and getting support from two armoured divisions across the straits (???) and no diminishing supply despite several attacks (???. As an aside are we absolutely sure Otranto is not a port? Since I have not got round to invading Italy yet these a bigger issues for me.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 5
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/15/2014 1:46:24 PM   
No New Messages
Erik Rutins
Matrix Games Staff


 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
The tough part is that the Allies could invade pretty much anywhere they wanted. They did not because they were concerned about losing an invasion and having that potentially lose the war. In WITW you can succeed with a carefully planned and supported landing earlier than D-Day, but you can also go too early into the wrong place and lose badly. If you lose badly, you will likely never recover enough VPs for a victory before the end of the campaign, so these are significant risks.

Regards,

- Erik


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 6
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/15/2014 2:25:23 PM   
No New Messages
ratprince
Matrix Veteran



Posts: 326
Joined: 3/15/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline
Gotta say, I LOVE that we can choose our landings anywere and the German reacts to it appropriately. Fairly amazingly well done programming....bravo...

Ive landed in the Balkans, Italy, all the islands, southern france, western france, northern france, the low countries...its awesome.... My next test will be to give the nordic countries a go.....hehe...

_____________________________

"Yeah that I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil...because I am."

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 7
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/15/2014 7:56:13 PM   
No New Messages
ogre
Matrix Recruit


 

Posts: 33
Joined: 11/29/2007
Status: offline
"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, June 5, 1944.

(in reply to ratprince)
Post #: 8
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/15/2014 11:27:15 PM   
No New Messages
Carterjon
Matrix Trooper


 

Posts: 56
Joined: 3/1/2011
From: San Francisco, CA
Status: offline
I wonder if more German troops might have been released by High Command from other theaters if there had been an Allied landing in the North of Italy, rather than the meager historical reinforcements in response to Avalanche/Salerno? I seem to remember that the Avalon Hill Anzio game had conditional reinforcements if the Allies landed North of Rome, or perhaps I am mistaken. It has been 40 years since I last played it. Damned good game.

(in reply to ogre)
Post #: 9
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/15/2014 11:33:28 PM   
No New Messages
Joel Billings
Moderator



Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
You have a good memory. We don't have any activation rules, but the German player has the ability to move more units from other fronts, and can move units from the Eastern Front if they really see an opportunity for a major victory.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Carterjon)
Post #: 10
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/16/2014 12:59:28 AM   
No New Messages
Carterjon
Matrix Trooper


 

Posts: 56
Joined: 3/1/2011
From: San Francisco, CA
Status: offline
Yes, I was actually talking about the Battleground Italy scenarion, where you can't denude other theaters. In the Campaign game I see your point.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 11
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/16/2014 2:18:35 AM   
No New Messages
76mm
Matrix Legion of Merit



Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

Ive landed in the Balkans...


I thought that the Balkans were off-limits in this game?

(in reply to ratprince)
Post #: 12
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/16/2014 3:27:05 AM   
No New Messages
sfbaytf
Matrix Elite Guard


 

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
Its been years but IIRC in Witp AE amphib invasions beyond B-24 range was not allowed and beyond fighter/good air cover range was a do at your own risk.

I find it hard to believe the allieds would risk an amphib invasion beyond air cover. Patton might, but he was not in overall command.

(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 13
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/16/2014 6:08:41 AM   
No New Messages
LiquidSky
Matrix Legion of Merit



Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


Weren't the torch landings beyond air cover range?

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 14
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/16/2014 7:24:19 AM   
No New Messages
Devonport
Matrix Trooper



Posts: 167
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline
I believe Torch was covered by carriers, as indeed were other med invasions.

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 15
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/16/2014 1:15:18 PM   
No New Messages
Smirfy
Matrix Elite Guard


 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
Kesselring believed the Allies would land North of Rome, remember the Germans had an Italian defection to contend with.

(in reply to Devonport)
Post #: 16
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/16/2014 7:08:38 PM   
No New Messages
ogre
Matrix Recruit


 

Posts: 33
Joined: 11/29/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

It's one thing against a good human player and another against the AI. At the moment, people looking to play against the AI and have a more competitive game should consider using a house rule where they don't invade more than 30 hexes away from an Allied airfield. In the first patch coming later this week, we've made Italian surrender in July and August less likely, but we have not yet looked at the issue of shipping losses when invading through enemy controlled sea hexes. It's possible this will need to be tweaked some, but I'm betting against us being able to get something into the first patch for this as it will take some additional analysis and testing and we just don't have the time before the Matrix holiday shutdown.


I have a long term recommendation, if ya'll haven't already considered it:

Ever thought about implementing a variable order of battle (OBs), to include locations? This would be a player option starting a game. Then the computer would choose from several OBs unknown to the player.

One problem with historical "starting points" is we have so much knowledge related to enemy dispositions. We didn't have that in real life. Granted, there is the fog of war when it comes to units...but we still have a general idea of dispositions.

With the variable OB, the player will need to do a better job at recon, and be careful on the bold moves. A weakly defended beach in historical OB context could be heavily defended in one of the variable OBs, and vice versa.





(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 17
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/16/2014 7:12:02 PM   
No New Messages
ratprince
Matrix Veteran



Posts: 326
Joined: 3/15/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline
Thats an excellent idea I wholly support.

Itd make multiplayer much more fun without God like fore knowledge

_____________________________

"Yeah that I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil...because I am."

(in reply to ogre)
Post #: 18
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/16/2014 7:19:52 PM   
No New Messages
RedLancer
Moderator



Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
That sounds great in theory but do you have any idea how long producing a playable scenario takes? Adding randomness or multiple starting options would make the task nigh on impossible to complete in a reasonable timescale. There is also a group of people who see any deviation from history in a scenario setup as a failure on the part of the designer.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to ogre)
Post #: 19
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/16/2014 8:06:48 PM   
No New Messages
zakblood
Matrix Legion of Merit



Posts: 22687
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: offline
replaying history is boring as you already know the outcome, doing better than history and still losing is even worse, that's why the editor is good so you have what if type battles or remake / alter the default ones, sticking to history just because it's history is for me a poor wargame, so glad you have the options to alter at least some of it with the menu items, or with the editor, all of it....


(in reply to RedLancer)
Post #: 20
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/16/2014 10:16:51 PM   
No New Messages
Numdydar
Matrix Legion of Merit


 

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ogre


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

It's one thing against a good human player and another against the AI. At the moment, people looking to play against the AI and have a more competitive game should consider using a house rule where they don't invade more than 30 hexes away from an Allied airfield. In the first patch coming later this week, we've made Italian surrender in July and August less likely, but we have not yet looked at the issue of shipping losses when invading through enemy controlled sea hexes. It's possible this will need to be tweaked some, but I'm betting against us being able to get something into the first patch for this as it will take some additional analysis and testing and we just don't have the time before the Matrix holiday shutdown.


I have a long term recommendation, if ya'll haven't already considered it:

Ever thought about implementing a variable order of battle (OBs), to include locations? This would be a player option starting a game. Then the computer would choose from several OBs unknown to the player.

One problem with historical "starting points" is we have so much knowledge related to enemy dispositions. We didn't have that in real life. Granted, there is the fog of war when it comes to units...but we still have a general idea of dispositions.

With the variable OB, the player will need to do a better job at recon, and be careful on the bold moves. A weakly defended beach in historical OB context could be heavily defended in one of the variable OBs, and vice versa.



If you want the above then you would love World in Flames In every game the OOB for all side is randomized. Plus when you build a plane/Inf/etc, one is randomly chosen from the available pool. So if you have a 7-4 and a 3-1 Inf available, you have a 50/50 chance of getting either one

Then your production pools are randomly generated for each year. So no two games are ever the same. Sometimes the Allies start out weaker/stronger, sometimes the Axis.

So if you want real randomness, this is the only game I know of that does this.


< Message edited by Numdydar -- 12/16/2014 11:17:52 PM >

(in reply to ogre)
Post #: 21
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/17/2014 12:15:25 AM   
No New Messages
dereck
Matrix Legion of Merit



Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
If I remember right I believe Salerno was picked for invasion because it was still within range of Allied land fighter cover. Have to remember the fighters probably weren't coming from North Africa but from forward bases in Sicily.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 22
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/17/2014 12:16:24 AM   
No New Messages
dereck
Matrix Legion of Merit



Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carterjon

I wonder if more German troops might have been released by High Command from other theaters if there had been an Allied landing in the North of Italy, rather than the meager historical reinforcements in response to Avalanche/Salerno? I seem to remember that the Avalon Hill Anzio game had conditional reinforcements if the Allies landed North of Rome, or perhaps I am mistaken. It has been 40 years since I last played it. Damned good game.


Believe it or not I still HAVE that game in my back closet somewhere with about 30-40 other Avalon Hill and other company's board war games.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Carterjon)
Post #: 23
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/17/2014 1:26:53 AM   
No New Messages
Numdydar
Matrix Legion of Merit


 

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Anzio is still being played at the World Board Gaming championship convention

I too loved that game and still have it. I played it a lot simply because it was the first game I played that used step reduction versus all or nothing elimination, except exchanges . Always hated that system where everything lives or dies based on a single die roll

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 24
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/17/2014 1:58:35 AM   
No New Messages
marion61
Matrix Elite Guard


 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 9/8/2011
Status: offline
I miss boardgames sometimes. Stale beer, snacks, and watching your opponent sweat out your moves! Internet made it impersonal.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 25
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/17/2014 5:25:22 AM   
No New Messages
MisterBoats
Matrix Trooper


 

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline
In the '43-'45 campaign, I've just taken the "boot heel" of Italy. Taranto is still occupied by the Germans, but Brindisi fell after a stout defense by a FJ regiment. The temptation of the ports and the airfields was too much to resist. Also, I'm not hemmed in by mountains in every direction. With Sicily about to sink from the weight of the air squadrons on it, I was able to maintain strong interdiction coverage over the southern third of the mainland.

Now, I am seriously considering a June '44 invasion of the north Brittany coast. It may be a bit out of range for the fighters, but the benefits are tantalizing. Chiefly: no hedgerows for the first few weeks.

I think that Montgomery invaded the boot heel in September (as have I), and Patton ordered several "on the fly" amphibious invasions (very small scale) west of Messina. I wouldn't consider a Po valley invasion, nor one at the Pas de Calais, but ones that are slightly different than history are perfectly feasible. I love this game!

(in reply to marion61)
Post #: 26
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/17/2014 5:36:24 AM   
No New Messages
Baelfiin
Matrix Legion of Merit



Posts: 2978
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MisterBoats

In the '43-'45 campaign, I've just taken the "boot heel" of Italy. Taranto is still occupied by the Germans, but Brindisi fell after a stout defense by a FJ regiment. The temptation of the ports and the airfields was too much to resist. Also, I'm not hemmed in by mountains in every direction. With Sicily about to sink from the weight of the air squadrons on it, I was able to maintain strong interdiction coverage over the southern third of the mainland.

Now, I am seriously considering a June '44 invasion of the north Brittany coast. It may be a bit out of range for the fighters, but the benefits are tantalizing. Chiefly: no hedgerows for the first few weeks.

I think that Montgomery invaded the boot heel in September (as have I), and Patton ordered several "on the fly" amphibious invasions (very small scale) west of Messina. I wouldn't consider a Po valley invasion, nor one at the Pas de Calais, but ones that are slightly different than history are perfectly feasible. I love this game!

One thing to consider is that the hedgerows can help you hold on to your beaches while you build up.

_____________________________

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha
The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.

(in reply to MisterBoats)
Post #: 27
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/17/2014 5:52:50 AM   
No New Messages
ogre
Matrix Recruit


 

Posts: 33
Joined: 11/29/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

That sounds great in theory but do you have any idea how long producing a playable scenario takes? Adding randomness or multiple starting options would make the task nigh on impossible to complete in a reasonable timescale. There is also a group of people who see any deviation from history in a scenario setup as a failure on the part of the designer.


I guess playable production depends on how much of the AI is scripted and how much is computed. As a scenario designer, you would know.

As for deviation from historical scenario, my suggestion was an "option" not a default. The default is historical. The "option" would put the player in the proverbial "guessing" position...bolstered perhaps with some intel...or requiring the gathering of intel.

For example, historically our Overlord deception was successful...Hitler was convinced it was Pas de Calais. What if, unbeknownst to the player, Hitler didn't fall for it...or didn't fall for it for so long?

(in reply to RedLancer)
Post #: 28
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/17/2014 2:14:33 PM   
No New Messages
ratprince
Matrix Veteran



Posts: 326
Joined: 3/15/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline
Mister Boats

I did a May invasion of the Brittany coast also. I had 16 infantry divisions land followed by 8 armored and all the cav groups and airborne. Without the terrain as a defense, I rolled through the Germans and captured paris undefended on Late May. The normandy invasion is foolish unless you only have a few divs landing. If you can mass an invasion, just hit the open terrain. I was in Freiburg Germany by middle June

_____________________________

"Yeah that I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil...because I am."

(in reply to ogre)
Post #: 29
RE: "deep" amphibious landings too easy - 12/17/2014 3:39:23 PM   
No New Messages
Smirfy
Matrix Elite Guard


 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
If that's the case it's logistics that is broken not the terrain.

(in reply to ratprince)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> "deep" amphibious landings too easy 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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.968