Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War



Message

Helsingor -> Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (1/21/2020 3:16:23 PM)

This game has been (unfairly in my view) described as "beer and pretzels." While I take exception to that, I suspect that one of the contributors to that impression might be the way LR amphibs work in the game.

Here are some possible limitations, maybe for a mod, if not the regular game:

Because they can use Cruise mode, they have tremendous range--maybe too much? Maybe LR amphibs should only have Cruise mode capacity at Tech level 2 or higher?

Perhaps France should not have access to LR amphibs at Level 0? (like Italy) I know it takes away some fun gambits against Italy in the early game, but having a French unit rocket all the way into the Adriatic seems too much (and I've done it myself, so I'm not just whining because someone outfoxed me!)

Last and hardest problem: LR amphibs, because of their range have the flexibility of attacking "targets of opportunity." Historically, this never happened. Every amphibious landing was planned for a specific location and was preceded by at least some reconnaissance--in the case of Normandy, two+ years of it. The need to designate a landing site and spend some time (more than a game turn) scoping it out is probably not something that could be built into the game engine, but I think the capacity of LR amphibs to land anywhere after a quick peek at the shore by a sub makes the game feel too loose for some players.

I'm on the fence myself, but I'm interested to hear what others think.



HamburgerMeat -> RE: Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (1/21/2020 6:06:37 PM)

LR amphibious transports are the most ahistorical feature of the game. It makes absurd events such as a joint german/japanese offensive on the US mainland a possibilty. Still, the game is currently balanced around their use, and gameplay possibilities would be extremely curtailed if they were removed. Still, I would not mind removing their ability to naval cruise so as to give allied players a better chance of catching and preparing for an axis naval invasion.

As for the ease of landing, that's something I'm fine with. The enemy can try to stop a landing by placing units along the coast, and naval units already do try to help shoot at landing troops. What would you even replace the current system with?

I think the devs are striving for playability over realism, especially in regard to amphibious landings. Maybe one could add a bonus for scouting beforehand, but that might be a pain to code in. I wouldn't change how landing works



sveint -> RE: Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (1/21/2020 6:24:41 PM)

I'd remove cruise mode, and shorten their normal movement. Also perhaps make them lose 1 supply per turn just like normal amphib.

Make them "Medium-range" instead of long-range.



wie201 -> RE: Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (1/21/2020 8:05:21 PM)

And that ultimately is the dichotomy. What is this creature we love but criticize? A game? Or a simulation? In my opinion, it is more of a game. A great game we all love and love to play (including me).



EarlyDoors -> RE: Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (1/21/2020 8:42:52 PM)

I don’t see any issue with them.

They rightly cost more than Transport.
They require an investment in Amphibious Warfare for proliferation.
And even a successful landing requires a major logistical effort to fight off counter attack.




Helsingor -> RE: Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (1/22/2020 12:36:41 AM)

Thanks for the thoughts. As I said, I'm on the fence about limiting LR amphibs' capabilities. And, yes wie201, I think of it as a game too and I'm not suggesting it should become a strict simulation. Just wondering if some of the wild moves (especially in the early game) that LR amphibs make so easy are putting some players off.




pjg100 -> RE: Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (1/22/2020 4:23:34 AM)

It is difficult enough to plan and execute the Japanese combined invasions in late 41/early 42 with the limited number of LRAV the game currently makes available. Having been the surprised recipient of one Japanese invasion of the US west coast, I can say that concerns about the unbalancing effect of such ahistorical gambits are overblown - in that game, the opportunity cost to the Japanese of using their LRAV to invade the US rather than more traditional targets was greater (in my opinion) than the benefit gained by taking out California and Seattle for a limited period. Also, I think that the RL equivalent of LRAV were used by the US to execute Operation Torch. So, I don't see a compelling reason to make any changes here.



Tanaka -> RE: Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (1/22/2020 6:57:03 AM)

Other transport issues I would include:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4747003



Scotty123 -> RE: Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (1/22/2020 3:54:25 PM)

I understand it likely has been asked befor but> why are LR amphibious TR's not able to land units at there destination? Especially those coming from the states. I was under the impression they could land units at a enemy taken port, but I am still unable to. Would be because as mentioned above Amphib require Amp. Warfare research/

just another noob/ thanks



EarlyDoors -> RE: Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (1/22/2020 4:15:18 PM)

Transports can unload on any hex around a level 5 or greater port in a single turn.
Less than level 5 it's the subsequent turn



HamburgerMeat -> RE: Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (1/22/2020 5:41:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors

Transports can unload on any hex around a level 5 or greater port in a single turn.
Less than level 5 it's the subsequent turn


Wow I didn't know about being able to unload during the subsequent turn. Very interesting



Mercutio -> RE: Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (1/22/2020 10:11:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HamburgerMeat


quote:

ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors

Transports can unload on any hex around a level 5 or greater port in a single turn.
Less than level 5 it's the subsequent turn


Wow I didn't know about being able to unload during the subsequent turn. Very interesting


Well, they are very vulnerable doing so. There are a lot of subtle rules with amphibious transports and transports. I do agree that Amphibious transports on cruise help the allies the most (esp US) and really Japan next.

The other topic not discussed it the number of transports (both types). It seems there should be some flexibility based on the number of ports or at least some way to improve the number. Once Germany takes Europe, you have so many points there is almost nothing to spend it on! However you are still limited to the number of transports, even if you have the UKs ports, much less Spain, Turkey, etc.!




taffjones -> RE: Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (1/23/2020 12:13:22 PM)

Hi Mercutio

I am sure if you research Logistics. It increases the number of transports and allows you to build an additional HQ for each level.



James Taylor -> RE: Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (1/24/2020 3:31:05 PM)

EarlyDoors has it right again in post #5, just like the AT units.



Christolos -> RE: Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (1/25/2020 12:44:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pjg100

It is difficult enough to plan and execute the Japanese combined invasions in late 41/early 42 with the limited number of LRAV the game currently makes available. Having been the surprised recipient of one Japanese invasion of the US west coast, I can say that concerns about the unbalancing effect of such ahistorical gambits are overblown - in that game, the opportunity cost to the Japanese of using their LRAV to invade the US rather than more traditional targets was greater (in my opinion) than the benefit gained by taking out California and Seattle for a limited period. Also, I think that the RL equivalent of LRAV were used by the US to execute Operation Torch. So, I don't see a compelling reason to make any changes here.

Agreed.

The in game distances LRAVLs are able to travel each turn, do indeed model the historical capabilities that were available for Operation Torch, so I too would argue that this not be changed...

C



Helsingor -> RE: Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (1/25/2020 7:56:21 PM)

Christolos, No argument about the speed of LR amphibious IRL. Just wondering if access to them should be more limited, in early game.



Christolos -> RE: Long-range amphib--love 'em or hate 'em? (1/26/2020 5:07:02 PM)

Hi Helsingor,

That is indeed a different issue than whether LRAVLs should have their ability to move at cruise speed curtailed or not.

How early access to them having cruise speed capability and how many are available from the start (i.e., before any success with research in logistics), is something I can't really speak to as I don't know enough about this from a historical perspective. It is, however, a good point and deserves further discussion.

As one who was taken completely by surprise by my Axis opponent in one of my PBEM games with a Japanese blitzkrieg of LRAVLs and AVLs that completely shifted the balance in the Pacific in one to two turns (see if you haven't: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684339&mpage=1&key=� ), I wondered at the time whether this should be possible. After reading more on the matter and learning/realizing that there are things the US can do to try and blunt at least the capture of Hawaii, I chalked it up to my inexperience.

Cheers,

C



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125