RE: Landing in a non-base hex (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

witpqs -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/22/2010 6:10:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

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.


While it's an idea, as you know the game does not have dot bases everywhere you could in reality build a base. I wonder if the game engine could scale to having so many dot bases.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/22/2010 6:11:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You defend it with ships, not troops. AE is as much or more a naval game as one of ground-pounding.


That's just absurd. I shouldn't have to worry about Japan landing along a 1000km+ long sheer cliff face period. This isn't command and conquer, it's supposed to be a game about history.

Jim



FrankE -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/22/2010 6:14:39 PM)


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.


Isn't the 'fix' for that already possible by modifying the map? If you have a stretch of coastline where you really want to prevent naval invasions, just block movement into those hexes from other water hexes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
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


If we went that route, I think almost every hex in the game would end up being a dot hex. If nothing else, you won't find many areas the size of a map hex that couldn't have supported at least a level 1 airfield. I'm ok with some abstraction in that regard.



witpqs -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/22/2010 6:48:37 PM)

Agreed, Frank. What Jim is really saying is that the map is wrong for not having prohibited ships from crossing that hex side.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/22/2010 7:15:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You defend it with ships, not troops. AE is as much or more a naval game as one of ground-pounding.


That's just absurd. I shouldn't have to worry about Japan landing along a 1000km+ long sheer cliff face period. This isn't command and conquer, it's supposed to be a game about history.

Jim


If that portion of Oz is 1000km long and all cliffs, then you have a problem with the map, not the game engine. The map has impassable mountains as a hex terrain option.

If it's not all cliffs (I don't know), then yes, you could invade there, and yes, you need to be prepared to stop the invasion on the sea side. Or wait patiently for him to come ashore, recover disruption, and then march many hexes to your base, where he'll STILL have to assault you and your fort level, same as if he'd come into the base hex. All he's done is avoid your CD. And the Oz CD isn't very good. But he ought to have that option, if he's willing to try it with low supply access.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/22/2010 9:36:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

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.


I don't think anyone is saying that the game should simulate amphib landings as direct assaults on the developed harbor in the hex. The variablity in casualties makes me think that you can 'land' in the same hex at the harbor or an un/underdefended beach. For that reason I wouldn't allow non-base invasions.

Don't know what you mean by 'logistics pipe'. If you mean that the allies were able to unload a large amount of material, eq and supply at Omaha, I'd agree that the game doesn't allow for this. I'd also say that the logistics pipe only occurred because of the Mulberry, proximity to England (being 20-30m from an industrialized nation w/ excellent harbors doesn't hurt) and vehicles designed to unload directly on the beach. 2 out of 3 of those factors are unavailable to the allies in the game and 3 out of 3 are unavailable as Japan.

Wouldn't use Normandy for an example of an up the coast landing. All the beaches were w/i 50m of Caen. Game wise you can make a case that the landing occured in the Caen hex with it's accompanying CD and defenders. I have to admit, I'd like to see what the result of a Normandy Invasion in AE would be.



Alfred -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/22/2010 9:58:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You defend it with ships, not troops. AE is as much or more a naval game as one of ground-pounding.


That's just absurd. I shouldn't have to worry about Japan landing along a 1000km+ long sheer cliff face period. This isn't command and conquer, it's supposed to be a game about history.

Jim


If that portion of Oz is 1000km long and all cliffs, then you have a problem with the map, not the game engine. The map has impassable mountains as a hex terrain option.

If it's not all cliffs (I don't know), then yes, you could invade there, and yes, you need to be prepared to stop the invasion on the sea side. Or wait patiently for him to come ashore, recover disruption, and then march many hexes to your base, where he'll STILL have to assault you and your fort level, same as if he'd come into the base hex. All he's done is avoid your CD. And the Oz CD isn't very good. But he ought to have that option, if he's willing to try it with low supply access.


Ah Bullwinkle, you know how much I admire your posts, particularly when you attempt to pull that rabbit out of the hat, but on this theme we part. You might recall my post of some months ago (in a discussion about CD capabilities on Hawaii) regarding cliffs, mangrove swamps, tides etc limiting invasion sites in real life but not being captured by the game engine. So I won't repeat myself here, however a few enlightening points about the Great Australian Bight might be useful.

Ever wondered why the AE game map has no dot bases (let alone a real base) between Esperance and Ceduna? That is because there is nothing there to support any permanent human establishment. Basically:

(a) no beaches, certainly nothing wide enough to support the amphibious TF unload rates of AE
(b) predominantly vertical cliffs which could be scaled by individuals reprising the role of mountain goats but no possibility of getting vehicles/artillery tubes etc up on to the plateau
(c) a distinct lack of drinkable water to support a battalion, let alone an AE invasion force from a 100 ship sized Amphibious TF (or 2 or 3 such TFs as employed by AE players). Would have to be a pretty tough choice for a commander to make, do I carry water or ammo (remembering just how heavy water is in comparison to carrying a 100 rounds of small arms ammo in addition to C rations all the time moving up to the plateau like a mountain goat) sufficient to see me through the AE engine 3-4 days minimum to walk from one road/trail less hex to the next. I hope we all remember what brought about the disaster of the battle of Hattin in 1187 AD, and they only had to cross 10 miles of waterless terrain
(d) its a pretty strong and cold swell coming up from Antarctica which intersects the coast along the Great Australian Bight

If the conditions were suitable, you would find the odd fishing village to take advantage of the economic bounty of tuna fishing etc. Instead its not until you reach Spencer Gulf (in AE map terms, Whyalla) that you find any meaningful human activity at Port Lincoln. In real life there are small outposts between Ceduna and Port Lincoln, but on the Great Australian Bight between Ceduna and Esperance, you may as well have a gigantic national park (which are found in reality).

Of course if really pressed[:D], I'll detail why in general I concur with Jim D Burns. In WITP classic, landing on a non base/dot hex was extremely gamey, IMHO, in AE it is almost but IMHO not yet quite acceptable to do so.

Oh, and just to add a very important point overlooked by the posts commenting on D-day. In the whole of northern France, in circumstances where the entire coastal infrastructure is held by the enemy, there are only 2, yes count them, suitable ports to sustain (remember we aren't talking about a Dieppe style raid) the projected Allied army - Cherbourg and Brest. To land within 46 statute miles of those ports (to put it into AE hex context) meant allowing the Germans to use the geography of the Cotentin and Brittany peninsulas to easily bottle up (at minimal cost to the Germans in terms of not having to pull reserves away from Germany or the Eastern Front) the Allies and force a frontal attack (think of the fighting in the hedges, now project that fighting occurring even further back before you hit open territory). The next really good port is Antwerp (if you overlook the difficulty of the Scheldt) - those ports in Haute Normandie, Picardie and Belgium are small and no major effort was made to subsequently capture them, remember that Patton relied upon Brest to supply him and the point of the Ardennes in December 1944 was to capture Antwerp.

Alfred



witpqs -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/22/2010 10:16:43 PM)

Alfred,

If that were really the reason why there are no bases there in AE, I presume there would be many dot bases in other places in AE where there are none. What I think you are doing is affirming the observation made by someone else that those hex side where you says landings could not take place should actually be made impassible to ships. The map is not perfect. There is no way that all viable places for bases have been given dots. No way.



Alfred -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/22/2010 10:34:46 PM)

There are two issues here which are being coflated.

One is the map. I totally agree that the red hexside should be much more utilised and if it were, I would be much more comfortable with non base/hex landings although even then I would have some reservations (due to the second issue). But how certain are we that red hexsides really work. Last week I posted in the Bug Forum that my MLs had crossed the Palk Strait, which according to page 40 of the manual is impossible. This outcome was acceptable because page 38 introduces a separate rule for ships of less than 100 tons (clearly the WITP classic notes had been imported without modification) - so just how big are those barges?

The second issue is AE game design which I honestly do not believe supports the arguments adduced for such landings. I don't have the time now to go into detail, but thanks for extending the invitation to come back later with my argument (I feel a bit like Jim Carrey in The Mask when he uttered "Somebody stop me!")[:D] Granted, as I posted, the changes made in AE almost make it acceptable, but ultimately I am not convinced. To be continued as a Vincent Price like laugh is heard disappearing down the dungeon corridor[sm=00000622.gif]

Alfred



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/22/2010 10:38:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

I don't think anyone is saying that the game should simulate amphib landings as direct assaults on the developed harbor in the hex. The variablity in casualties makes me think that you can 'land' in the same hex at the harbor or an un/underdefended beach. For that reason I wouldn't allow non-base invasions.

Wouldn't use Normandy for an example of an up the coast landing. All the beaches were w/i 50m of Caen. Game wise you can make a case that the landing occured in the Caen hex with it's accompanying CD and defenders. I have to admit, I'd like to see what the result of a Normandy Invasion in AE would be.


The game has to abstract to fit the hex size. I've never assaulted a base hex with CD where the CD did not fire, which makes it game-operational that you ARE assaulting the harbor. If there's variance built into the casualties to simulate being in the hex, but 20-miles from the actual harbor and the CD, I haven't noted it.

I did mean the Mulberries, but also the very short distance from England. PTO invasions often take place across hundreds or thousands of miles. But, even in China, I'm hard-pressed to come close to assembling a wad of troops even close to just what went ashore on D-Day itself. Supply needs are not the same. That, and things like panzers being able to, yes, react 40 miles on D-Day, but on pristine, paved roads rather than jungle, do make D-Day a poor comparison to AE's issues.

A Normandy invasion in AE's engine would be nonsensical. The scale is simply not workable.



witpqs -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/22/2010 10:53:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I don't have the time now to go into detail, but thanks for extending the invitation to come back later with my argument (I feel a bit like Jim Carrey in The Mask when he uttered "Somebody stop me!")[:D]



You, sir, have a standing invitation!

I won't stop you - I'm after the truth. And, yes, I can handle the truth!

[:D]



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/22/2010 10:57:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Ah Bullwinkle, you know how much I admire your posts, particularly when you attempt to pull that rabbit out of the hat, but on this theme we part. You might recall my post of some months ago (in a discussion about CD capabilities on Hawaii) regarding cliffs, mangrove swamps, tides etc limiting invasion sites in real life but not being captured by the game engine. So I won't repeat myself here, however a few enlightening points about the Great Australian Bight might be useful.

Ever wondered why the AE game map has no dot bases (let alone a real base) between Esperance and Ceduna? That is because there is nothing there to support any permanent human establishment. Basically:

(a) no beaches, certainly nothing wide enough to support the amphibious TF unload rates of AE
(b) predominantly vertical cliffs which could be scaled by individuals reprising the role of mountain goats but no possibility of getting vehicles/artillery tubes etc up on to the plateau
(c) a distinct lack of drinkable water to support a battalion, let alone an AE invasion force from a 100 ship sized Amphibious TF (or 2 or 3 such TFs as employed by AE players). Would have to be a pretty tough choice for a commander to make, do I carry water or ammo (remembering just how heavy water is in comparison to carrying a 100 rounds of small arms ammo in addition to C rations all the time moving up to the plateau like a mountain goat) sufficient to see me through the AE engine 3-4 days minimum to walk from one road/trail less hex to the next. I hope we all remember what brought about the disaster of the battle of Hattin in 1187 AD, and they only had to cross 10 miles of waterless terrain
(d) its a pretty strong and cold swell coming up from Antarctica which intersects the coast along the Great Australian Bight

Of course if really pressed[:D], I'll detail why in general I concur with Jim D Burns. In WITP classic, landing on a non base/dot hex was extremely gamey, IMHO, in AE it is almost but IMHO not yet quite acceptable to do so.



I accept that opinions will differ on this. People make HRs and are happy, so who am I to tell them nay?

I've been from Adelaide to Perth on the train, somewhat north of the coast, but I understand how rough that land is, certainly water-wise. Any RL general would be insane to try to land on that coast.

BUT, in game terms, to get there to try the Japanese player must run a naval search gauntlet that ranges from Are You Kidding Me? on the east, to Do You Feel Lucky, Punk?, on the west. If the Allied player has no naval assets at Sydney or Perth to intercept, then shame on him. The Japanese player is also going to be at fuel limits going that far south.

He can get ashore, yes, because the map isn't impassable as it perhaps should be. The devs made the map, and perhaps they envisioned no off-base invasion attempts, but they also left the engine alone to allow them.

But once he's ashore, then what? He's weeks and weeks away from attacking anything, with no hope of reenforcement. He's too far away for barge resupply (fuel again.) The Japanese don't have any AKAs, and very few 1944 LSTs. So his troops, out of the war for months, march across desert, drinking, yes, Magic Game Water, and arrive at someplace they want to attack, and are met by the might of the Aussie army, railed there in sweet comfort, well-supplied, with nearby national HQs, and enough planes to darken the sky.

If the Japanese bring enough to really fight, they strip somewhere else. And if they invade through the Bight, it's like Cortez burning his ships. Win, or die. A stupid, stupid move. But not, IMO, one a player should be artificially prevented from making by a HR.

Thanks for the geo lesson too. I really want to go back to Australia before I kick off. Just this week I was urging a friend stuck on business in central Asia to come home on the Pacific route, and to swing down to see Oz for a week. Reccoed the Great Barrier Reef since he would only have a week. Alas, the skies cleared and he's coming back through Frankfurt after all.



Zemke -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/23/2010 1:33:47 AM)


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, you should be able to land where the terrain allows you too. He is going to pay the price in the inability to sustain the attack because he will not have any port. If the Allies can hold, he is sure to lose in the long run. Look at the Normandy landings, the Allies needed to take a port and soon, which is why the quick capture of Cherbourg was important, the Allies needed a port.

Perhaps the engine needs a patch to make landing in an area without a port harder, which is better than making you conform to landing right in the teeth of the enemy defense each and every time. This is not a one sided issue and would apply to both sides.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/23/2010 4:43:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Agreed, Frank. What Jim is really saying is that the map is wrong for not having prohibited ships from crossing that hex side.


It can go either way. Either prohibit naval moves into hexes that can’t possibly suit large scale invasions, or simply place dot hexes in any hex that geography shows could have supported such an invasion. And I’m not talking about a couple hundred guys landing off of a barge carrying their own provisions with them in a commando style raid.

I’m talking about locations with deep water to allow deep draft ships to get in close enough to shore to be able to efficiently unload massive amounts of tonnage. Things like tidal conditions, surf conditions, local transportation networks, etc., all played a role in a given locations ability to suit large scale amphibious operations.

Just because it was possible to sail up and dump a boatload of guys on a given strip of land does not mean that location would have been able to support amphibious operations for large scale combat formations.

The militaries of the world put millions of man hours into studying conditions and the sites that were found to be exposed to possible landings were identified and defended. That’s why I say if a location was able to support such a landing it should be a dot hex, because they were actually pretty rare, not nearly as common as some here apparently think.

Placing prohibited hexsides instead of simply adding some dot bases would be a lot more work, as most empty hexes would not be suitable for large scale amphibious ops.

Jim



PMCN -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/23/2010 10:56:50 AM)

They landed on the coast so obviously they were landing at "ports" as essentially every village on the sea has a port (it pretty much would not exist otherwise) but they had no plans to capture a major port in the first part of the invasion. And the minor ports they landed on where insufficient to allow the sort of ships you need to support several divisions in combat to dock and off load. So no they had no "port" objectives for the first week beyond setting up the mulberries.

I never said anything about air strips so why did you mention them? An airstrip for fighters only requires flat ground. The area is rather flat so why would building air strips be an issue?

I've been to Cousillers-sur-Mer. There is no significant port there. There is also a single, narrow road leading from the beach inland. It is little wonder that a traffic jam of epic proportions held up the Canadian's more than the germans, though I would not call the landing a "cake walk." Given they took around 50% casualties to the initial landing wave.



Andrew Brown -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/23/2010 2:21:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You defend it with ships, not troops. AE is as much or more a naval game as one of ground-pounding.


That's just absurd. I shouldn't have to worry about Japan landing along a 1000km+ long sheer cliff face period. This isn't command and conquer, it's supposed to be a game about history.

Jim


If that portion of Oz is 1000km long and all cliffs, then you have a problem with the map, not the game engine. The map has impassable mountains as a hex terrain option.


Interesting that the Great Australian Bight is being discussed. When I made the map, I actually wanted to make the Bight "un-invadeable" (is that a word?), but I didn't, simply because I looked for, but could not find, a map that showed exactly which parts of the Bight have the high cliffs. So not wanting to just guess, I left it alone (also taking into account that there were not likely to be a lot of invasions there).

So if someone does have a good idea of exactly which stretches of the Bight coastline are lined with cliffs I could happily amend the map to suit.

By the way, not all coastal hexes are able to be invaded in AE. For example, swamp hexes are not able to be invaded. This is done using a "not able to be invaded" attribute in the hex data. There is no need to use impassable hexsides like there was for the old WitP map.

So if there are other specific locations that could not be invaded at all (along the entire stretch of coast included in the hex) they could be treated in the same way.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the invasion of non-base hexes. That is perfectly fine as far as I am concerned. But I know there are a lot of people who prefer to restrict invasions in that way.

Andrew



crsutton -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/23/2010 2:22:03 PM)

Well, there you have it. Some do and some don't.......

I for one don't. Best to talk to your opponent about this and come to an understanding and then stick to it. Remember, if it works for him then sooner or later it will work for you so you have lost nothing if he really wants to do it. Don't let it spoil your game with him...It will be fun either way.



rader -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/23/2010 2:51:36 PM)




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.



But you do take heavy losses landing on an undefended beach. Especially heavy, actually because you can't prep for it.



Oldguard1970 -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/23/2010 3:22:29 PM)

Excellent conclusion! [&o]

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, there you have it. Some do and some don't.......

I for one don't. Best to talk to your opponent about this and come to an understanding and then stick to it. Remember, if it works for him then sooner or later it will work for you so you have lost nothing if he really wants to do it. Don't let it spoil your game with him...It will be fun either way.




Jim D Burns -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/23/2010 7:28:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely
So no they had no "port" objectives for the first week beyond setting up the mulberries.


Port-en-Bessin was the fuel hub of the entire invasion PLUTO (undersea fuel pipeline) came ashore there. It wasn’t a major port no, but it did service shipping just like all the other small ports. More than likely only shallow draft AKLs and the tankers that used the ship to shore setup at Port-en-Bessin, but they were invaluable ports for the invasion.

I looked it up, besides Arromanches and Port-en-Bessin, the small ports of Grandcamp, Barfleur, Courseulles, Isigny and St. Vaast all served the invasion. They weren’t huge port facilities no, but combined with the mulberries they did allow the allies to adequately supply themselves for well over two months.

It hadn’t been planned for them to be used for such a long period of time initially. But the Germans did such a good job of destroying the Port facilities at Cherbourg that it became necessary for the campaign to rely on these small ports and the single surviving mulberry, and they did so without ever running into serious supply issues.

The single surviving mulberry itself could only handle about 7,000 tons a day. So over the beach unloading and these small ports handled the lion’s share of the supplies and troops that were delivered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely
I never said anything about air strips so why did you mention them? An airstrip for fighters only requires flat ground. The area is rather flat so why would building air strips be an issue?


Sorry I was responding to another poster further up-thread. Lazy posting practice on my part, sorry for the confusion.

Jim



castor troy -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/24/2010 8:44:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rader




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.



But you do take heavy losses landing on an undefended beach. Especially heavy, actually because you can't prep for it.



you do? Was this changed from WITP? Because in WITP it was like unloading in a friendly port.



JeffroK -> RE: Landing in a non-base hex (4/24/2010 11:34:32 PM)

Awkward argument here because its taking place on 2 separate threads.

Take away the Gt Oz Bight, I am sure the West Coast of the USA & Canada and Alaska have similar forbidding coastlines (eg Ketchikan), same goes for Alaska, Siberia, Japan & Korea.

Most of these hexes should be uninvadable, even some existing bases are "up-river" or are only docks and no invadable beaches.

I think the reason this wasnt pursued by the Devs is because in WW2 PTO, most of the Invasions were on 1 hex islands, against undefended back beaches which cant be a different hex because of scale( Koepang, Ambon, Rabaul, Milne Bay, Attu or Kiska?) or in a few cases against a defended location (Kota Bharu, Lingayen).   The Devs decided to allocate a base for Leyte, which didnt exist but was invaded and due to the US Armies abilities could be turned into a workable base, a similar decision for Ramree Island (nr Akyab).

If IRL major amphib assaults were made against continental hexes, I am sure they would not have been into the teeth of permanent CD defeses (anyone invading Bataan or Pearl Harbour??)

Is working on this a pwhex issue or something we cant fiddle with??





Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.671875