Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Long Range Amphibious Transports

 
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] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> Long Range Amphibious Transports Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/16/2021 8:43:31 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline 		Hi everyone

A number of players have expressed concern that the ability of Long Range Amphibious Transports to both Cruise and disembark in the same turn is a bit much.

I'd like to gauge opinion on this before we commit to making a change here, as we need to be certain that it is the right move to make, i.e. would removing the ability to do both in one turn upset any valid strategies?

I'm inclined to think not, but have a think about this and then let me know.

Bill

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
Post #: 1
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/16/2021 10:03:44 PM   
taffjones

 

Posts: 346
Joined: 3/25/2016
Status: offline 		Hi Bill

I think it should be changed.

Speaking from experience (Falklands 82). After the mad dash down there the ships slowed down so we Army lads could sort ourselves and kit out ready before we landed. Quite a lot of the lads had suffered with sea sickness quite badly and needed a calmer 48 hour period to recover.

So the change would replicate this, also in WW2 the troops were crammed into ships taking turns to sleep, eat etc, so they would have been in a worse condition than we were.

It would also prevent the UK from DoW'ing on Denmark to gain access to the Baltic, destroy the KM and follow it up with invading 1 of the Baltic states before France falls (Elite players have done this to me )

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 2
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/16/2021 10:50:59 PM   
fluidwill matrix

 

Posts: 140
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline 		I think its an exploit and should be nerfed

(in reply to taffjones)
Post #: 3
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/16/2021 11:11:49 PM   
ThunderLizard11

 

Posts: 573
Joined: 2/28/2018
Status: offline 		I'd be concerned about a shift in game balance towards Axis. Main advantage is attacking Italy and parts of Asia as Allies. If no offsetting change is made to Axis I'd leave as is or maybe up odds of damage from doing a cruise/disembark in same turn - maybe double odds?

(in reply to fluidwill matrix)
Post #: 4
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/17/2021 12:18:18 AM   
vonRocko

 

Posts: 1447
Joined: 11/4/2008
Status: offline 		I vote not to change it.

(in reply to ThunderLizard11)
Post #: 5
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/17/2021 1:10:54 AM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline 		Naval cruise [and] disembarkation in the same turn seems to lead to some close to gamey strategies imho. Allied side gambits on Italy, Denmark and even Japan home islands using this technique comes to mind. The Japanese can pull this kind of stuff too.

Still, nerfing this mechanic is a touchy subject for sure..but I lean towards taking this ability away. It would make players come up with more realistic decisions when doing landings...not the helter-skelter suicide runs that no nation would have done.


< Message edited by OldCrowBalthazor -- 8/17/2021 1:12:09 AM >

_____________________________

Balthazor's Strategic Arcana

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwnsBUHYdk7tcejmU5k9cOw

(in reply to vonRocko)
Post #: 6
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/17/2021 1:13:12 AM   
redrum68

 

Posts: 1202
Joined: 11/26/2017
Status: offline 		IMO its pretty unrealistic and gamey so I'd vote to change it. Though the point that it probably nerfs the allies more than axis is a fair one.

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)
Post #: 7
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/17/2021 2:55:15 AM   
Jackmck

 

Posts: 68
Joined: 6/15/2019
Status: offline 		I don't think it should be changed, although the ability of the French to do LRA should be reduced to the same as Germany. With both France and the UK able to do a LRA in 1939/40 there are some very gamey moves that shouldn't be allowed, in my view.

Taking away the LRA disembark the same turn as cruise would affect the Allies more than the Axis- Japan could plan ahead more but the US would be even further behind in turning the course of the war. I suspect there will be fewer allied victories as a result; especially in the Pacific.

(in reply to redrum68)
Post #: 8
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/17/2021 3:08:15 AM   
Cpuncher

 

Posts: 354
Joined: 3/26/2019
Status: offline 		I agree it seems more of an exploit to cruise and land in the same turn (I also believe to capture a port and land a whole Army Front in the same turn should be disallowed, that is, freshly captured ports should not be allowed to disembark regular transports in the same turn), but this change will impact the Allies a lot, and some balancing tweaks will be promptly needed.

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 9
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/17/2021 3:29:02 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpuncher

I agree it seems more of an exploit to cruise and land in the same turn (I also believe to capture a port and land a whole Army Front in the same turn should be disallowed, that is, freshly captured ports should not be allowed to disembark regular transports in the same turn), but this change will impact the Allies a lot, and some balancing tweaks will be promptly needed.


Interesting discussion. I am for anything less gamey although I love being able to do this as Japan. I see a lot more transports lost having to wait another turn to land...more risk for sure..

You bring up a good point about ports you mean having to wait another turn to land here as well?

Maybe another option would be to lower naval movement points overall so there is more risk to crossing? Hard to say what the best answer is this will definitely be a big game changer...



< Message edited by Tanaka -- 8/17/2021 3:31:53 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Cpuncher)
Post #: 10
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/17/2021 3:33:06 AM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline 		Not sure about overall axis vs allies game balance, but amphib units already seem incredibly powerful just for their ability to get their "free" attack attacking from a sea hex, often devastating, completely wiping out entrenched enemy land units without any need to actually hit the beach. I would tone down this ability somewhat and also give the defender unit the ability to inflict losses in retaliation.

I thought amphibious assaults in WWII were supposed to be extremely difficult and costly.

Or if no change to their attack values, you could simply change how Amphib tech works - limit it to level 3 and one research chit at a time and increase the cost of the tech. That would also have the effect of slowing down amphib transports if people dislike that.

But I'm a newbie at this game so don't take my opinion too seriously.

(in reply to Cpuncher)
Post #: 11
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/17/2021 3:50:34 AM   
Cpuncher

 

Posts: 354
Joined: 3/26/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

You bring up a good point about ports you mean having to wait another turn to land here as well?



Yes either having to wait another turn or just making sure ports are always captured with strength 4 or below. This will ensure the player having to hit the beach with a sufficiently strong initial landing force, instead of capturing a port with just 1 amphibious unit, then ship a huge Army Front in... also the randomness of whether the port is captured with strength 5 or not is too big of an impact to the game outcome...people seem always can capture ports intact...

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 12
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/17/2021 9:09:00 AM   
EarlyDoors


Posts: 548
Joined: 12/16/2018
From: uk
Status: offline 		it comes down to a simple question

Is a successful invasion currently too easy, too difficult or about right?

I think it's about right, certainly not easy especially against Fortress Europe.
It also allows Japan to be surprising and aggressive.

If naval cruise + disembark were to be removed I think the game would need to find a way for Spying + Intelligence to 'spot' empty towns/ports

_____________________________

18-17 PBEM++
-----------
Honours the game
-----------
http://scwaw-rankings.s3-website.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com

(in reply to Cpuncher)
Post #: 13
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/17/2021 2:08:21 PM   
ElvisJJonesRambo


Posts: 1345
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: offline 		French suicide Transport trying for Kiel, lol.
British Calvary suicide Transport(s).
Swarm Italy to make them surrender based on Morale.
Swarm Asia with USA transports.

Everything is gamey. Russia is getting pounded, you really have a choice? Yanks Level 3 & Long Range Bombers in 1942.

Comes down to the skill of the players.


(in reply to EarlyDoors)
Post #: 14
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/17/2021 2:32:57 PM   
snooky51

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 5/5/2021
Status: offline 		I think an offset is maybe changing the Vladivostok lend-lease route. About half of all aid to the Soviet Union went through the Pacific with 8 million+ tons going through Vladivostok, and something like only 400k going through the Bering Strait. You could drastically increase the MPP value of the Vladivostok route (helping Soviet Union) with any blockading attempts immediately causing war between Japan and USSR (ships flew soviet flags, which is why they were allowed to use this route) plus some kind of NM damage to Japan for starting a war with USSR (they were very afraid of fighting the USSR).

(in reply to ElvisJJonesRambo)
Post #: 15
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/17/2021 7:23:08 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: snooky51
About half of all aid to the Soviet Union went through the Pacific with 8 million+ tons going through Vladivostok, and something like only 400k going through the Bering Strait.


That's riciculous that Japan allowed this. What the hell were they thinking? Bomb American battleships and the Americans will sue for peace, but don't intercept millions of tons of goods keeping the Soviets afloat cause that might make them mad!

(in reply to snooky51)
Post #: 16
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/17/2021 7:50:39 PM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ElvisJJonesRambo

French suicide Transport trying for Kiel, lol.
British Calvary suicide Transport(s).
Swarm Italy to make them surrender based on Morale.
Swarm Asia with USA transports.

Everything is gamey. Russia is getting pounded, you really have a choice? Yanks Level 3 & Long Range Bombers in 1942.

Comes down to the skill of the players.



This whole subject ties in on how easy the USSR can get pounded...and which results in the activity you just mentioned :)

_____________________________

Balthazor's Strategic Arcana

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwnsBUHYdk7tcejmU5k9cOw

(in reply to ElvisJJonesRambo)
Post #: 17
Russia pounding / "minimalist strategy" - 8/17/2021 9:40:39 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline 		Maybe russia needs some balance changes too?

< Message edited by Chernobyl -- 8/17/2021 9:42:12 PM >

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)
Post #: 18
RE: Russia pounding / "minimalist strategy" - 8/17/2021 11:27:39 PM   
ElvisJJonesRambo


Posts: 1345
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: offline 		Don't think there's really a right or a wrong. Will always be exploits, it's a game.

Another idea: What if Allies could send more MMPs on the convoys? Brits are what 30% of their money, could change it to 60%. Get some more action in the East and weakened the West.

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 19
RE: Russia pounding / "minimalist strategy" - 8/17/2021 11:47:47 PM   
havoc1371


Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline 		Get rid of the ability to land if the AVL makes an extended move. Its a game, but that is beyond unrealistic to launch amphibious ships that far for an invasion.

(in reply to ElvisJJonesRambo)
Post #: 20
RE: Russia pounding / "minimalist strategy" - 8/18/2021 8:05:13 PM   
DrZom

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 1/5/2005
Status: offline 		Using the Cruise function deprives a war ship the ability to make an attack at the end of its movement. Why wouldn't it be the same for an amphib assault? One step further, why should a troop transport be able to disembark troops in a port after using Cruise? Shouldn't the limitation of action be consistent? At the end of moving by Cruise the unit is done, across the board.

After all, isn't the purpose of Naval Cruise to simulate non-combat movement across the vast ocean?

(in reply to havoc1371)
Post #: 21
RE: Russia pounding / "minimalist strategy" - 8/18/2021 8:19:37 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DrZom

Using the Cruise function deprives a war ship the ability to make an attack at the end of its movement. Why wouldn't it be the same for an amphib assault? One step further, why should a troop transport be able to disembark troops in a port after using Cruise? Shouldn't the limitation of action be consistent? At the end of moving by Cruise the unit is done, across the board.

After all, isn't the purpose of Naval Cruise to simulate non-combat movement across the vast ocean?


Yeah I am in agreement with this. There needs to be some disadvantages to the super advantages of cruise.

_____________________________


(in reply to DrZom)
Post #: 22
RE: Russia pounding / "minimalist strategy" - 8/19/2021 1:32:03 AM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: DrZom

Using the Cruise function deprives a war ship the ability to make an attack at the end of its movement. Why wouldn't it be the same for an amphib assault? One step further, why should a troop transport be able to disembark troops in a port after using Cruise? Shouldn't the limitation of action be consistent? At the end of moving by Cruise the unit is done, across the board.

After all, isn't the purpose of Naval Cruise to simulate non-combat movement across the vast ocean?


Yeah I am in agreement with this. There needs to be some disadvantages to the super advantages of cruise.

DrZom makes an excellent point here...and Tanaka agrees...well now.

_____________________________

Balthazor's Strategic Arcana

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwnsBUHYdk7tcejmU5k9cOw

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 23
RE: Russia pounding / "minimalist strategy" - 8/19/2021 4:17:29 PM   
taffjones

 

Posts: 346
Joined: 3/25/2016
Status: offline 		That's the point I was trying to make in my 1st post.

You should be able to use cruise to cover long distances, but then need to use normal transport mode (slow down) to land the troops.

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)
Post #: 24
RE: Russia pounding / "minimalist strategy" - 8/19/2021 5:37:39 PM   
ElvisJJonesRambo


Posts: 1345
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: offline 		Always goto other people's funerals. Otherwise, they won't come to yours.

(in reply to taffjones)
Post #: 25
LRT Invasions - 8/19/2021 6:01:28 PM   
LoneRunner

 

Posts: 202
Joined: 8/16/2020
Status: offline 		LRTs should not be able to cruise and invade on the same turn. The practice is extremely unrealistic. And an amphibious assault is nothing like landing troops in port.

Look at the planning that went into invading Normandy. Yes, just a short jump across the Channel. But the invasion required massive air and sea support. And why did the USA bother with island hopping during WWII? Why not just slide across the Pacific and invade Japan? Because invasions require enormous logistics and support. You can't just send transports sailing across the ocean. You got to control the air and sea before you can consider invasion.


(in reply to ElvisJJonesRambo)
Post #: 26
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/20/2021 3:30:28 AM   
ElvisJJonesRambo


Posts: 1345
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: offline 		How long is a turn?
How long to sail on those American Transports?
How long to unload?

(in reply to LoneRunner)
Post #: 27
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/20/2021 8:51:46 AM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline 		Thanks for all the comments everyone, it's great to see the discussion that has followed my original post.

The most significant argument against changing it seems to be that the Allies will need some sweeteners to help make up for this in terms of game balance, which is fair enough.

If anyone has any other thoughts on this, one way or the other, please do let us know.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to ElvisJJonesRambo)
Post #: 28
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/20/2021 9:05:01 AM   
petedalby

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 12/18/2020
Status: offline
quote:

LRTs should not be able to cruise and invade on the same turn. The practice is extremely unrealistic. And an amphibious assault is nothing like landing troops in port.


I agree whole heartedly. Allow me to share an embarrassing example. It is August 1943. Russia has surrendered. Australia & NZ have surrendered. China is down to less than 10 units. Most of the Japanese land forces are engaged in Burma & India or are on their way back from Russia.

The US launches 3 LRTS in cruise mode and take out Seoul, Osaka & Tokyo in 1 turn. No home troops deploy. Japan surrenders.

Totally unrealistic and a complete game changer. A great move by my opponent and a simple learning point for me.

But LRTs should not be able to Naval Cruise and invade on the same turn.

(in reply to ElvisJJonesRambo)
Post #: 29
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/20/2021 10:40:08 AM   
Taifun


Posts: 932
Joined: 12/28/2006
From: Spain
Status: offline 		Vice Almiral Henry Kent Hewitt sailed from the USA October 24 1942 with the Operation Torch invading fleet. Arrived to the Moroccan Coast November 8 1942, disembarked and attacked. In the Pacific all the invading fleets attacked within weeks after loading. I wouldn't change the LRTs ability to cruise and attack. I would limit this ability after reaching level 1 Amphibious Warfare so the French wouldn't get it at the beginning of WWII.

_____________________________

La clé est l'état d'esprit

(in reply to petedalby)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> Long Range Amphibious Transports Page: [1] 2 3   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

0.984