Invasions need air cover

Invasions need air cover (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe

Message

geordietaf -> Invasions need air cover (12/18/2016 4:00:17 PM)
Could one method for avoiding improbable invasions be to require that any landing hex be within range of at least one friendly fighter?

n0kn0k -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/18/2016 4:52:11 PM)
That's actually a pretty good idea.

Ironclad -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/18/2016 5:42:17 PM)
+1 or carrier air range

ILCK -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/18/2016 8:48:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ironclad +1 or carrier air range Would have to be or else the invasions of Spain I am doing would never be possible. The real problem for invasions is that the AI has to, much like the human player, has to commit so much to the USSR there is precious little left to punish frivilous invasions. Given the way the rules work there is no reason not to invade Denmark as opposed to Normandy.

Hairog -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/19/2016 1:59:02 AM)
That's a great idea.

Hartmann -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/19/2016 9:41:46 AM)
Sounds good, would have to be tested, though. Also, the AI has to be "instructed". We need them to be able to do Torch, Husky etc.

CapitaineHaddock -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/19/2016 3:25:39 PM)
I am not convinced. Do we really need to restrict options any further for the sake of "realism"? With the proposed system, the historic German invasion of Norway becomes impossible (except by event, of course) The Germans landed With considerable force as far North as Narvik - which is a pretty good distance from Germany and at least as far as say Alger from Italy or Southern France. IMO, this risks tipping the scales heavily in favor of the allies. Right now, there is always a slight chance that some axis invasion fleet lands in the middle of nowhere. If this possibility disappears, the allies can deploy accordingly and altogether foresake garrisoning key positions such as Gibraltar.

Goodmongo -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/19/2016 4:11:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CapitaineHaddock I am not convinced. Do we really need to restrict options any further for the sake of "realism"? With the proposed system, the historic German invasion of Norway becomes impossible (except by event, of course) I agree with this assessment. It also means Torch would have been impossible.

OxfordGuy3 -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/19/2016 4:46:00 PM)
I'm not convinced this is the best solution

n0kn0k -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/19/2016 7:09:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Goodmongo quote: ORIGINAL: CapitaineHaddock I am not convinced. Do we really need to restrict options any further for the sake of "realism"? With the proposed system, the historic German invasion of Norway becomes impossible (except by event, of course) I agree with this assessment. It also means Torch would have been impossible. Use aircraft in Denmark to cover Norway(not sure about the range though) and carriers in the atlantic?

Hartmann -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/19/2016 7:24:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Goodmongo quote: ORIGINAL: CapitaineHaddock I am not convinced. Do we really need to restrict options any further for the sake of "realism"? With the proposed system, the historic German invasion of Norway becomes impossible (except by event, of course) I agree with this assessment. It also means Torch would have been impossible. Having read the argument regarding Narvik, I now agree too. With Torch, there could be carriers involved (like it was in reality), but for Narvik this is impossible.

Goodmongo -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/19/2016 8:07:03 PM)
As for Operation Torch the Allies used one CV and four escort CV's (CVE) of which only the CV and one CVE were actually committed to battle. They participated in the landings near Casablanca but did not participate in the other two landings in the Med. Two of the CVE's were really ferrying fighters to be used from captured airbases. And why a fighter? Wouldn't a bomber be better at supporting a landing? And here's another problem. Fighters have a very short range. Heck a fighter based in UK couldn't support landings in western France that is not next to the channel. It also means Germany could never invade Iceland, even if it only took one SF unit to take the place. Plus in the Pacific there were many landings without any air cover.

Hartmann -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/19/2016 8:21:47 PM)
What I was sympathetic with initially is OP's motivation to try and figure out something "reasonable" that could prevent gamey stuff. Some weeks ago someone posted that one can confuse the AI by doing alot of "mini-invasions" which it will then not react adequately to, thereby losing vast stretches to lone units mucking about. I tried that and ... well, it's true. I can avoid it in my games by just not doing gamey stuff (house rules), but I would rather like to see this prevented or punished somehow. The "air cover needed"-suggestion seemed plausible enough to me at first glance, but yes - in the end it's just too arbitrarily restrictive.

Hairog -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/19/2016 8:40:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hartmann quote: ORIGINAL: Goodmongo quote: ORIGINAL: CapitaineHaddock I am not convinced. Do we really need to restrict options any further for the sake of "realism"? With the proposed system, the historic German invasion of Norway becomes impossible (except by event, of course) I agree with this assessment. It also means Torch would have been impossible. Having read the argument regarding Narvik, I now agree too. With Torch, there could be carriers involved (like it was in reality), but for Narvik this is impossible. Narvik was a once in a war event. It caught the Allies by surprise because it was early in the war and so audacious. Try and do it in any other strategic level game and you'll most likely fail. How about not air superiority but at least a 1 to 2 ratio . Just something to stop sneak , unrealistic invasions.

Goodmongo -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/19/2016 9:16:00 PM)
In many ways this sounds like someone asking for a rule that prevents them from hitting their hand with a hammer. The AI doesn't do these crazy invasions. They may do a bad invasion that fails but they land plenty of units to try to actually win. What are people actually asking for here? What is the definition of an "improbably invasion" that the OP mentions? Is this intended to stop the AI or a human?

Hartmann -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/19/2016 9:50:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Goodmongo Is this intended to stop the AI or a human? I don't know what others intended by it, but I saw it as a (possible, but ultimately not worthwhile) means to prevent humans from cheesing the AI. I just don't want people getting away with funny business against the AI and then coming here and complaining how easily it is beaten. Hubert has already included alot of good ideas to prevent some of the more common cheesy stuff which worked in so many of the older games. The best thing is of course to simply make the AI stronger - which Hubert has certainly done, but in some things the AI still needs help by special rules - like the one where French morale drops if you leave the Maginot line or allow a German advance to Paris. This really helps to prevent the old trick of just getting all French units to hunker down around Paris. (One can still do it, but it won't stall the German AI anymore.) Stuff like that. Regarding the success of multiple mini invasions, I now think that it might be just a symptom of another, more general problem, namely that the AI is not able to judge how to allocate forces to "sub theaters" if there are too many of them simultaneously.

dhucul2011 -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/20/2016 1:14:43 AM)
Not needed. A better option is to increase the "landing troops take casualties" effect, especially when landing in cities. Also add Italian and Spanish garrison scripts for the AI to force it to keep cities guarded.

dhucul2011 -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/20/2016 1:18:06 AM)
Deleted

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/20/2016 5:06:21 AM)
What is needed is a Naval Interception Mission for Air Units.

Hartmann -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/20/2016 8:43:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 What is needed is a Naval Interception Mission for Air Units. I like that, but it has to be implemented well - naval and tac bombers cannot just automatically attack ships or transports sailing by. Aerial interception works because it's always an attack that is intercepted. The trigger of interception then would have to be a transport unloading on a hex - there's already the routine determining landing casualties, so this could surely be elaborated. The intercepted transport would have to be treated as still being on its sea hex for the naval bombing, though. Also, it has to be very carefully balanced. I'd like the AI to react better to invasions, but I also want it to still be able to do its own invasions successfully.

Hairog -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/20/2016 2:01:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Goodmongo In many ways this sounds like someone asking for a rule that prevents them from hitting their hand with a hammer. The AI doesn't do these crazy invasions. They may do a bad invasion that fails but they land plenty of units to try to actually win. What are people actually asking for here? What is the definition of an "improbably invasion" that the OP mentions? Is this intended to stop the AI or a human? A national leader/supreme commander/head cheese would not last long if he/she kept losing thousands of men on sacrificial and meaningless mini invasions meant to irritate the enemy. How many Dieppes, Dakars could Churchill or de Gaulle suffer and still keep their jobs? There were very few failed/repulsed or even contained amphibious invasions. A quick perusal of the invasion list of WWII you will find that almost all had air superiority. Dakar failed because the French did not want to kill fellow Frenchman which seems very civilized to me.

xwormwood -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/20/2016 6:13:00 PM)
Another suggestion: - heavy losses to all amphibs which find themselves in bad weather - invasions into beaches under fog of war suffer from higher landing losses compared to those where the beaches have been cleared by recon flights - rough coastlines (higher losses if invaded because of current, rocky reefs, etc.)

Goodmongo -> RE: Invasions need air cover (12/20/2016 6:37:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 What is needed is a Naval Interception Mission for Air Units. NO! And what good does a single fighter or bomber do anyway? So now one unit has 2-3 less strength. Not much of an impact. quote: ORIGINAL: Hairog A national leader/supreme commander/head cheese would not last long if he/she kept losing thousands of men on sacrificial and meaningless mini invasions meant to irritate the enemy. How many Dieppes, Dakars could Churchill or de Gaulle suffer and still keep their jobs? Yea because Hitler, Stalin and others didn't last long after losing MILLIONS of troops in risky attacks or foolish defenses. Oh wait yes they did survive those massive blunders. Generals and admirals get sacked, leaders of their countries didn't.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.078125