quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I disagree with your point that non-base/dot landings are bad. There are significant penalties to the landings units and as a result they are rarely done. I do suppose they (like anything) could be abused if tiny fractional units were used for them, but that would be a different issue on it's own. Obviously YMMV.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I disagree with your point that non-base/dot landings are bad. There are significant penalties to the landings units and as a result they are rarely done. I do suppose they (like anything) could be abused if tiny fractional units were used for them, but that would be a different issue on it's own. Obviously YMMV.

I think I recall testing this. Problem is that the penalties do not apply while invasion bonus is on IIRC.

Hartwig

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

My initial interest was in overcoming the loss of ships from Portland. I do like the logistics in the game and this would have been a challenge. Recently, I had two days of sweeps over Chungking in which a 75 plane Zero group destroyed over 20 P-40s and other aircraft. I was told it was a training group. [:@]
I think I had pulled back and defended China well as Donald was stymied around the perimeter. In two successful attacks using a mega-stack he blew through my defense 1 NW Nanyang. I don't mind being beaten by superior tactics.
I've done well to get the logistics up and running the way I prefer.

If you like a stock game, without stacking limits, minimal conversation in your emails, and able to do at least one turn per day. Please PM and I'll pass on Don's email.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Did not know that: understood but isn't that the point of the invasion bonus? If my opponent did non-base/non-dot invasion while he had the bonus I would not object.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I disagree with your point that non-base/dot landings are bad. There are significant penalties to the landings units and as a result they are rarely done. I do suppose they (like anything) could be abused if tiny fractional units were used for them, but that would be a different issue on it's own. Obviously YMMV.

I think I recall testing this. Problem is that the penalties do not apply while invasion bonus is on IIRC.

Hartwig

• can avoid immediate contact with enemy LCUs. In particular enemy static CD units which can separately inflict serious losses on both ships and the invading LCUs
  
• exposure to enemy minefields can be minimised both because the landing site probably does not have a sown minefield and if it does have one it will naturally decay much faster than one sown at an enemy base
  

• not all empty real estate allows the landing of LCUs
  
• depending on the terrain itself, the movement from the landing site to the actual enemy base allows for significant enemy reinforcements (both land and air units, and if necessary supply too) to be rushed to the target before the invaders arrive
  
• in many instances the presence of friendly LBA assets to support the marching LCUs will be limited or even non existent. In particular friendly land based fighters to provide CAP may be totally lacking. The only certain friendly air cover will be that from carriers and this in itself creates a problem for it ties friendly carriers down to the invasion location perhaps for weeks thereby exposing them to enemy LBA and naval air attack/naval combat plus the opportunity cost
  
• the overland march will subject the marchers to post landing additional fatigue and disruption. This is independent of any increase resulting from enemy air/naval bombardment. If marching through a malarial jungle this malus can become quite substantial, to the point that once they arrive at their destination they may require additional days to recover before attacking
  
• the initial organic supply landed with the LCUs will not cover the total time spent in marching to the destination. This means that the ships carrying supply must remain to regularly unload supply. They are therefore exposed to extended enemy action plus the opportunity cost. The additional fuel consumption is a particular concern to Japan.
  
• it will always take longer to conclude an invasion when the landing is adjacent to an enemy base rather than landing directly on the base. By the time the Allied player is in a position to regain territory, time is of the essence. For Japan the entire initial offensive is a race against time
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I disagree with your point that non-base/dot landings are bad. There are significant penalties to the landings units and as a result they are rarely done. I do suppose they (like anything) could be abused if tiny fractional units were used for them, but that would be a different issue on it's own. Obviously YMMV.

I think I recall testing this. Problem is that the penalties do not apply while invasion bonus is on IIRC.

Hartwig

hartwig.modrow,

You are considering only the irrelevant "penalties" and overlooking the relevant penalties. The Japanese unloading bonus is not dependent on location of the "beach".

1. Different unloading rates apply depending on whether one is unloading at

(a) an owned port, or
(b) elsewhere

In the case of (a) further differentiation is made on the basis of the Amphibious TF being either docked or undocked, with additional factors coming into consideration.

In the case of (b) the unloading rate is not dependent on the factors which affect unloading under (a). In general terms the unloading rate under (b) is primarily dependent on the type of ship and is faster than that achieved by the same ship type under (a).

2. The Japanese early war unloading bonus only applies to (1)(b) operations. As such there is no distinction made between landing at an Allied built up base, or an Allied dot base, or just an empty piece of real estate. The bonus provides a boost of 2x or 4.8x (dependent on the particular ship type involved) over the equivalent Allied ship type.

The real benefit derived by the Japanese player from the early war unloading bonus (which exists for only a limited time) is that Japan's historical shortage of real attack amphibious ships is temporarily rectified. Without this benefit the AI would not be able to come close to achieving the historical Japanese conquests and if truth be told many a human Japanese player would similarly fail with the consequential adverse impact on the chances of the game lasting much into 1943.

It is important to recognise that the Japanese early war unloading bonus falls far short of what is achievable permanently by the Allied player once the arrival of real attack amphibious ships starts in earnest in 1943.

3. Unloading rates from an Amphibious TF are never a relevant malus which needs to be taken into account when structuring a (1)(b) operation.

4. For (1)(b) operations, the relevant pros and cons of landing at an empty piece of real estate instead of landing at an enemy built up base/ dot base are

Pros

• can avoid immediate contact with enemy LCUs. In particular enemy static CD units which can separately inflict serious losses on both ships and the invading LCUs
  
• exposure to enemy minefields can be minimised both because the landing site probably does not have a sown minefield and if it does have one it will naturally decay much faster than one sown at an enemy base
  

Cons

• not all empty real estate allows the landing of LCUs
  
• depending on the terrain itself, the movement from the landing site to the actual enemy base allows for significant enemy reinforcements (both land and air units, and if necessary supply too) to be rushed to the target before the invaders arrive
  
• in many instances the presence of friendly LBA assets to support the marching LCUs will be limited or even non existent. In particular friendly land based fighters to provide CAP may be totally lacking. The only certain friendly air cover will be that from carriers and this in itself creates a problem for it ties friendly carriers down to the invasion location perhaps for weeks thereby exposing them to enemy LBA and naval air attack/naval combat plus the opportunity cost
  
• the overland march will subject the marchers to post landing additional fatigue and disruption. This is independent of any increase resulting from enemy air/naval bombardment. If marching through a malarial jungle this malus can become quite substantial, to the point that once they arrive at their destination they may require additional days to recover before attacking
  
• the initial organic supply landed with the LCUs will not cover the total time spent in marching to the destination. This means that the ships carrying supply must remain to regularly unload supply. They are therefore exposed to extended enemy action plus the opportunity cost. The additional fuel consumption is a particular concern to Japan.
  
• it will always take longer to conclude an invasion when the landing is adjacent to an enemy base rather than landing directly on the base. By the time the Allied player is in a position to regain territory, time is of the essence. For Japan the entire initial offensive is a race against time
  

Once the pros and cons are factored into the planning, it will be a rare situation where the ROI of landing at an empty piece of real estate is better than that from landing directly at the enemy base.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Did not know that: understood but isn't that the point of the invasion bonus? If my opponent did non-base/non-dot invasion while he had the bonus I would not object.

Well...

1) the preparation system does not allow for preparation for non-base (base including dot base for the sake of brevity) hexes. If you believe this is intentional, you may argue that this reflects the intention to penalize non-base invasions.

2) below is shown what you get when landing Singora invasion force (TF91) in a standard turn (landing on April 30 42) with invasion bonus in a Chinese non-base hex, starting 3 hex from the coast (=2/3 unload phases):

As you see, you come ashore in pristine shape. Better than in any opposed base landing. No mines, no CD guns, no counter fire. So it becomes more attractive to invade non-base than base hex to cut losses / minimize risks.

3) invasion bonus is in place to reduce operational tact IMO, and the point of the invasion bonus is to allow IJ flexibility in the early expansion phase after all, not to lift penalty to non-base invasions.

But I am very much part of the "it's a game" faction of players and like tit for tat, so the whole issue is not a killer argument for me.

Just my 2 cts.