Amphibious Invasions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan



Message

battlevonwar -> Amphibious Invasions (2/6/2021 9:49:53 AM)

I kind of get the feeling that things like Cavalry, Armor, Mechs or other units like an HQ doing an amphibious invasion looks just out of place. I can see them landing on a friendly hex but otherwise these units shouldn't be doing naval invasions.

Let me give you an example... An opponent of my amphibiously invades a Norwegian Port, I counter invade the following turn to free up the port with an Italian Unit into the Baltic. The Italians would of never done this and couldn't of so far from home. If they would of it would of been fiasco on the nightly news.

I would of really loved to see the Marine Division stronger and getting a massive bonus to a naval invasion but it's really useless within the game. Making it a full on 30 strength with a bonus that makes it so juicy and making every other unit aside an Infantry Corp unable or so expensive that nobody uses them. I think this would round out the game more so in terms of 'investment to invade'... which is a little too easy!

Any Nation including Romanian can invade the Caucasus ... not say it is an impossibility just saying I would feel more realism if they couldn't! Plus more realism if say an HQ wasn't invading a port on it's own.

Not sure that this is a major point but I feel that it is... People have to use Armor or really strong Corps in order to really get a breakthrough ... if Marines had a Huge Landing Bonus and were very expensive but hit like Armor on the Landing but not afterward I think it would make the game a lot more entertaining in that value. Plus this links over to Pacific Theater?

You wouldn't find Hungarian HQs landing in Scotland or Canada in this way? Plus even more expensive naval points! Cause I see way toooooo many of them I am also learning to do way too many. Of course in our ETO game the Russians would have to be strong enough to survive the initial onslaught if this was done!



sillyflower -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/6/2021 2:13:59 PM)

Cavalry have always been able to invade since ancient times. The Roman Emperor Claudius even had elephants when he invaded us in AD 43. Also several armoured units landed on D-Day and contributed greatly to the successes on Sword, Juno and Gold. The naming of the class of ships called Landing Ship Tanks is also a bit of a give-away [:D]



Harrybanana -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/6/2021 3:42:16 PM)

You have to remember that each turn is 2 weeks. While it is true that it was not practical to use very many armour and mech in the initial attack waves, it certainly was possible to unload them on the beaches in the follow up waves. What I would like to see is where you cannot use armour and mech to invade an enemy controlled hex/beach, but can unload them on a friendly controlled beach. Doing so would require the use of landing ships; though in my opinion this should not expend the landing ships. This would allow a player to invade an enemy controlled beach with infantry, move the infantry and then unload armour and mech (or HQs or other infantry for that matter) into the now friendly controlled beach. If this was done than the cost of landing ships could be significantly increased and some of them (those not used in the first wave) would not be lost after use. This would have two beneficial effects:

1. It would encourage players to make narrow invasions of just a few hexes. Historically, both Husky and D-Day were invasions of just 2 or 3 hexes. But when I invade mainland Europe as the Allies in the face of strong Axis opposition I try to invade as many hexes as possible; at least 5 hexes/beaches and preferably 7 to 9.

2. If landing ships cost 100 production each instead of only 25 it would discourage the harassing and suicide invasions made by a single division.



sillyflower -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/6/2021 9:19:24 PM)

No Dieppe then?

100 points per LC just seems ludicrous to me, and against the spirit of the game. After all. the ships used in invasions were all reuseable and only the Higgins boats would be likely to suffer irreparable damage in quantity, and they weren't that hard to replace. Div sized invasions would be all anyone could afford, and would result in payers making invasions by massed paras which would be truly silly.



battlevonwar -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/6/2021 9:29:05 PM)

Nah, those weren't true modern Naval Invasions with Machine Guns, barbed wire and artillery.

I can imagine Cavalry getting off the boats by just the mere sound of that much ordinance going off it would have caused shock, the Horses would have pooped all over the LC Decks and tripped and the men would be trampled.

This is Modern Warfare. . . During the Gold Juno and Sword landings some of the specialized Armored Vehicles wore these odd Bras to protect them and many were sunk to the bottom of the English Channel. Anyway that small amount of Armor is included in Marines and Infantry Corps. Landing Hundreds of Armor has never happened in History and to this day is impossible cause they weigh a ton. Under IDEAL conditions some of the Bra Armor got ashore and the English Channel and many other regions never had ideal conditions. (Shermans didn't come in Corp size, imagine Tigers? We are playing Space Aliens in the 22nd Century?)

What you're really thinking of is established Beachheads and then comes the armor, supply and other units. Specialized Ranger Units were used on some of the obstacles and Airborne along with Air and Bombers just to get men on the beaches in all the MAJOR landings including Sicily and Normandy. Without combined Arms in modern times it would have been impossible under a contested landing to accomplish that I imagine.

We were expected to have such casualties to invade Japan, can you imagine McArthur landing with his staff and a few thousand support personal on a Major contested Beach? Not on your life?

Cavalry may have landed somewhere in a feint in some miniscule story in WW2 but I will bet you may not find an instance in the past 100 years and even in WW1 where such things happened.

Marines, Rangers, specialized Trained Infantry were used with Airborne only. When they weren't usually **** got ugly like Tripoli(if you want to go back a page) Even during the Civil War we had some fiascos if you want to consider that semi Industrial Era Amphibious Landings. Maybe Cav was used then but doubtful if contested again. HorseFlesh and Poo everywhere!

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Cavalry have always been able to invade since ancient times. The Roman Emperor Claudius even had elephants when he invaded us in AD 43. Also several armoured units landed on D-Day and contributed greatly to the successes on Sword, Juno and Gold. The naming of the class of ships called Landing Ship Tanks is also a bit of a give-away [:D]




battlevonwar -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/6/2021 9:36:50 PM)

It is tough to land on a contested Beach even in Warplan HarryBanana without a good deal of land units now air was nerfed. That's why armor and mechs have to be used. I can understand the abstraction you point out and that armor followed up after an established beach head. With entrenchment you have to hit a full Corp with about 3 or 4 Units which makes it impractical to charge so much. Ports aren't defensible on the map as much. I see say 2 Airborne assaults, 2 or 3 Marines and then a follow up of Armor and Mechs. Maybe at a Discount if the beach is friendly Hexes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

You have to remember that each turn is 2 weeks. While it is true that it was not practical to use very many armour and mech in the initial attack waves, it certainly was possible to unload them on the beaches in the follow up waves. What I would like to see is where you cannot use armour and mech to invade an enemy controlled hex/beach, but can unload them on a friendly controlled beach. Doing so would require the use of landing ships; though in my opinion this should not expend the landing ships. This would allow a player to invade an enemy controlled beach with infantry, move the infantry and then unload armour and mech (or HQs or other infantry for that matter) into the now friendly controlled beach. If this was done than the cost of landing ships could be significantly increased and some of them (those not used in the first wave) would not be lost after use. This would have two beneficial effects:

1. It would encourage players to make narrow invasions of just a few hexes. Historically, both Husky and D-Day were invasions of just 2 or 3 hexes. But when I invade mainland Europe as the Allies in the face of strong Axis opposition I try to invade as many hexes as possible; at least 5 hexes/beaches and preferably 7 to 9.

2. If landing ships cost 100 production each instead of only 25 it would discourage the harassing and suicide invasions made by a single division.




Harrybanana -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/7/2021 12:50:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

No Dieppe then?

100 points per LC just seems ludicrous to me, and against the spirit of the game. After all. the ships used in invasions were all reuseable and only the Higgins boats would be likely to suffer irreparable damage in quantity, and they weren't that hard to replace. Div sized invasions would be all anyone could afford, and would result in payers making invasions by massed paras which would be truly silly.


I meant to say 100 production for 10 landing ships (rather than the current 25) but only the landing ships carrying the actual invading troops are lost. Therefore invading 3 hexes with 3 large corps and 3 follow up corps would cost 180 landing ships = 1800 production. But of this only 90 landing ships (900 production) would be lost. The remaining 90 LSs could be used for a future invasion or to continue to land more troops on the now friendly beaches in following turns. As I say, my usual "D-Day" type of invasion involves 4 large corps and 2 armour. These require 24 X 25 = 600 production, but than I lose all my LS.

You could still do a Dieepe raid, although it would cost you 100 production. On the scale of the game that is probably what the Dieppe raid did cost. It certainly cost a lot more than 25 production. But why would you? The purpose of Dieppe was to test German defences and gain experience in amphibious assaults. There is no benefit in the game to be derived from doing this. But what it may stop is players pulling the stunt I pulled in my AAR of landing a division for the sole purpose of over running an air unit. Or landing single Italian divisions on the coast of Africa to temporarily put the British Army out of supply. If these little adventures cost 100 production rather than only 25 there would be far fewer of them.



ComadrejaKorp -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/7/2021 3:53:47 PM)

Is the current invasion system really that bad?

IMHO I think it works quite well, you can continue adjusting the parameters (maybe a litlle more expensive) but I think we are close.
As a fan of invasions that I am, the changes made have forced me to change the way I play.

In my last game as an Ally I invaded a lot in 40/41 I won't be able to do it in 41/42, I have my punishment.

Regarding to invade airplanes, I think the problem is for those who do not protect their airplanes or position them badly, the game allows using airfields all over the map without penalty, it is logical that you should protect these airfields.

Regarding kamikaze missions to cut supply lines, I think that they currently have a high cost for those who carry them out (you loose the troop too), although their cost could continue to increase.

Personally I would remove the invasion option for the HQ, it would be logical since they cannot attack.



ComadrejaKorp -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/7/2021 4:37:07 PM)

Another issue is whether each country should have a geographical limit to where it can operate, I am really against it, although invasions should be penalized or more expensive when they operate outside their geographical area.



ncc1701e -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/7/2021 4:43:29 PM)

In an old PBEM game, I have learned my lesson with the German naval invasion of Arkhangelsk port.
I lost the game. It was fun.

Now, I always put a Soviet Rifle corps there just in case. [:D]



michaelCLARADY -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/7/2021 5:57:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Cavalry have always been able to invade since ancient times. The Roman Emperor Claudius even had elephants when he invaded us in AD 43. Also several armoured units landed on D-Day and contributed greatly to the successes on Sword, Juno and Gold. The naming of the class of ships called Landing Ship Tanks is also a bit of a give-away [:D]

USA cavalry did an amphib in Cuba during the war with Spain.



sillyflower -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/8/2021 4:54:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

landing single Italian divisions on the coast of Africa to temporarily put the British Army out of supply. If these little adventures cost 100 production rather than only 25 there would be far fewer of them.


Cost of LC's + a div means a minimum of 85 pts, and more if the xx is above '39 tech, and double if a weak 20 MP xxx which would be more use because it has a zoc.

Anyway, I like the way the game allows little adventures instead of being another WWII sim.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/8/2021 7:27:55 PM)

From my observations players don't garrison their captured territories enough as the Axis. This opens them up for small invasions that can turn into large ones.



battlevonwar -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/8/2021 8:27:23 PM)

Amphibious Invasions do allow for something to be done on a small map, there is a ton of fun in that and a ton of different strategies that can be employed. Wouldn't hurt the game to have had a Garrison unit(like HQs are used for) Most people I notice use the Canadian, UK, Axis Minor, Major HQs as garrisons vs Airborne Drops and covering rear supply cuts.

Cavalry invading beaches, I can see Normandy now on news footage reels :P Patton could go back to his invasion of Mexico on Horseback instead of a Sherman? [:D] the European Armies used Cavalry extensively especially the Germans. Maybe aside the Brits, French who had enough Cars, trucks. Russians got US ones later... Most the Europeans used their Cavalry for transport though got there and fought as Infantry not as Cavalry.



Harrybanana -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/9/2021 12:26:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

From my observations players don't garrison their captured territories enough as the Axis. This opens them up for small invasions that can turn into large ones.


True. But even a small invasion to capture an ungarrisoned port would have required planning and cost, IMHO, greater than 25 production. But my bigger concern are the suicide invasions. The ones where a player has no intent on capturing a port and is fully aware that his invading units will be eliminated. Such as those invasions along the coast of Africa. Another is an invasion near a port to increase your recon of the port so that you can then attack that port with your fleets or carriers with a much improved chance of locating the enemy fleet. I could give other examples; but I realize that I am whipping a dead horse.



battlevonwar -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/9/2021 6:09:05 AM)

Yup, Crete, Dieppe, Anzio(only saved later) to name a few. Even Eisenhower wrote a D-Day failure letter. Most these units could retreat from their situation. In Warplan you require a port(and there are many of those to garrison, imagine it can cost 500-600 Steps to just cover the basics on either side except the USA/Canada. Port Garrisons or Guns would be nice... Stationary cheap low budget units that stop Divisional Attacks. Or require an experience Division such as a Marine to dislodge it?

Norway was an error... One could argue that Market Garden was one of the well known ones with a Bridge Too Far made into a movie and books being written about it. The Morale Hit on troops doing crazy stuff getting obliterated, surrendering and captured is quite huge. Stalingrad was on land not at Sea but certainly afterwards most Germans began to see the end more so and the German invincibility suffered.(dozens of lost units on the Eastern Front, North Africa fiascos that cost the Axis and Russians Millions) In Warplan 2 I would implement if you allow for complete encirclement and crushing of a number of units you lose XP Points as Morale Points(which they are partly based on)

The Germans didn't start off as the well oiled machine they were pre-Poland it was what they learned in Poland that helped them win in France.




AlvaroSousa -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/9/2021 2:16:34 PM)

I heard about the suicide invasions. In the long game they don't work and only use resources.... unless you completely ignore them.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/9/2021 2:18:33 PM)

As for little garrison units. I thought about that but what would be the point? They could just get destroyed on invasion. I put some 3 strength garrison it takes nothing to kill it.

A strategy players can do is rotate out damaged low effectiveness troops to France and move those fresh divisions to the other fronts. The Allies don't know which units are low in strength.

Last game I played the Axis half my garrisons on the French coast had 3-5 strength. My opponent didn't notice.



Nirosi -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/9/2021 3:55:42 PM)

I must say that I never found it that hard to garrison the necessary ports either as Germany or the Allies. As Germany, it is possible to have at least a division on every port From Bordeaux to Narvik by June 1941 and still have a similar force for Barbarossa than the one that is in the 1941 scenario. I believe that many German players will prefer to have a larger army for Barbarossa instead and therefore leave some ports empty. That might still be ok, but it is then a strategic choice that is made one way or another.

However, find the situation a little unfair for Italy because it is the only country (major or minor) with the USSR that can not build divisions (and even the USSR can at least split its armies). Since a landing in Italy is too dangerous to be permitted (either because Italy could fall or because it forces Germany to lose huge opportunities in the USSR in summer 1941 by sending back units to help) one must therefore garrison all the Italian ports outside the Adriatic. Even small ports can cause serious problems if taken. I think it could really make a difference for the best in the game and be realistic to allow Italian corps to split if only to be able to garrison more realistically. It is heartbreaking and to have a hole corps to defend a one size port. If that would affect the game to much to let them be able to split their corps, maybe a compromise would be to let them build divisions but with penalties to experience (to represent second line units used for costal duties?



ComadrejaKorp -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/9/2021 4:06:37 PM)

I like that each country has its own rules for its armies, but I understand what you are saying, an option would be for the Italian Marine Corps to be cheaper but it seems to me that this option has already been rejected.



Nirosi -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/9/2021 10:37:58 PM)

As far as LCs go, I am not informed enough to judge what the perfect price could be, but 100 PP seems way too much... unless they are made reusable (However in that case they might become too cheap then).

Maybe a option worth exploring could be to make them sensibly more expensive than now and reusable, but once used, they would go back to the deployment window for x number of turns. Because they would be more expensive one would not have plenty of them in reserve to do amphibious assault every turns, but would still be able to do a few tries every x turns once the LCs come back on play?

The exact numbers (PPs and delay for deployment) would have to be tried for a few games to find a good balance (or even see if it could make sense).




ncc1701e -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/10/2021 7:10:20 AM)

Few points to consider here:

1/ Germany was able to do naval invasions in Denmark and Norway. They need to still have the ability to do so.

2/ Italy has not done any naval invasions during the war I think. I may be mistaken here.

3/ UK was fearing Operation Sealion in 1940 so we must still allow Allies player to guess about an invasion.

4/ USA and UK invaded North Africa in November 1942.


Now, in all my games, UK or USA, sometimes UK only without USA at war, can invade North Africa end of 1941 or early 1942.

The initial situation at the beginning of Europe 1939 is:
Germany - 10 landing ships
Italy - 10 landing ships
UK - 0 landing ships
France - 0 landing ships
USA - 0 landing ships
USSR - 20 landing ships

And, yes I do or I see suicide division invasions to occupy me or my opponent.

The solution is to increase the cost. But, for me, there is another solution. We can keep the 25 PP cost for landing ships.
But, we can increase the needs of them for an invasion.

This is already done for armored/mechanized corps. My proposal is to do the same i.e. multiple the landing ships needed for invasion.

Infantry division: 10 Strength (x 3) = 30 landing ships required
Small infantry corps: 20 Strength (x 3) = 60 landing ships required
Large infantry corps: 30 Strength (x 3) = 90 landing ships required
Cavalry corps: 20 Strength (x 6) = 120 landing ships required
Mechanized corps: 30 Strength (x 6) = 180 landing ships required
Armored corps: 30 Strength (x 6) = 180 landing ships required
HQ: 10 Strength (x 10) = 100 landing ships required

The suicide division attack will be more costly and no more HQ suicide attack... [;)]

As such, I think we need to increase the initial landing ships of Germany and Italy to 60 landing ships instead of 10.

What do you think?

[image]local://upfiles/46661/B5E56F9CE875422A9CB71CA7531AD24D.jpg[/image]



battlevonwar -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/10/2021 8:09:15 AM)

Alvaro you could be right. Generally people make their own improvised garrisons as you just mentioned(Allies use a ton of UK/Canadian Divs and the Germans use a bunch of misc. Axis Divs..which aren't always easy to dislodge entrenched) but those won't defend either if I suspect someone is really using just weak Divs I will often go for gold if the area is somewhere he cannot reinforce. That or wait for a huge massive amphibious invasion which is more entertaining.

Only thing about such invasion is the cost 25 LC per 10 points



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/10/2021 1:54:48 PM)

Players want something balanced that 1/2 of the situation is their own responsibility.

If you leave 3 ports open on the French West Coast because it is 1941 and 3 UK divisions walk in there forcing you to back rail units to defend vs it you have nothing to complain about. They literally sailed up and disembarked onto an empty port.

If you have some 3 strength unit that I know is a garrison type I am landing 2 divs to kill it and cheeze my way up.

If you have a division and I want to super cheeze an invasion now perhaps I take 3 corps.

But you see the escalation of resources is dependent on the player and there is no middle ground here for this cost that cost, this restriction, that restriction. I think SC3 has 1 landing allowed at the start of the game? Well that means all I need are 2 strong corps in France + 1 fighter as Germany and screw getting bombed on the coast or having to AA the ports until 1942.

As for the cost. in 1939 a division costs 60, landing ships for it 25, and Germany's production is 204.

For the UK in 1939 it costs....
~16% of production to make 1 LC
~42% of a divisions cost to use an LC (90 cost div based on tech.
Which is a hefty cost

For the UK in 1944 it costs....
~9% of production to make 1 LC
~28% of a divisions cost to use an LC (90 cost div based on tech.

So the costs scale as time goes on reflecting improvements. One of the reasons I have economic multiples to abstractly represent this.

Then there is the factor of time. The game is run on VPs. So you spent 50pps to raid Saint-Nazaire costing the Germanys 2pps for say 4-5 turns. On top of that you lose 2 divisions. At best it is a distraction for the Germans. If you do some cheeze invasion in 1942 hoping to achieve annoyance level you just made your 1943 landings more difficult.

Now invading in 1942 to save the USSR from collapse is another matter entirely. You are sacrificing later equity to save more equity right now, on the Eastern Front.

I am hoping the changes will balance things out for a more balanced Russian front and a better sneak invasion blowing up. How does one affect another? With sneak invasions that turn into major ones the Allies dump a lot of armor on the beaches. They use non-stop supply trucks to augment them. I have seen it happen to me in 3 games where I have the Allies stuffed in a corner then in 3 turns they truck up and blow my line away rotating our 6 armor in a 9 hex front near Brest in a place that no where near has the port capacity to support that many armor.

Slow changes. I am taking a little more time with this patch to make sure things are ok.



ncc1701e -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/10/2021 4:24:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

Only thing about such invasion is the cost 25 LC per 10 points


With my above proposal, it is 75 LC per 10 points.



ncc1701e -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/10/2021 4:27:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Players want something balanced that 1/2 of the situation is their own responsibility.


I don't know. Why it took one year for USA to invade North Africa? Right now, one turn after USA is at war, they can invade North Africa without opposition. Same for UK if BoA turns well for them.

I don't want to replicate history. It is just that big scale invasions are there too soon.

Thus, the idea to increase the cost to perform them.



battlevonwar -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/10/2021 5:55:03 PM)

14 Panzer Corps though can really eat the USSR even with it's upgrades, the Allies do need to send relief more than just production ... Some players can amp up 14 Panzers and run em straight through Leningrad/Moscow and even beyond! Balance is a tricky thing...

FlaviusX said that the Axis were OP he was partly right but then I played a guy that showed me noooop, he played them wrong. The Allies were strong but you got to know what to do with them. And maybe my Axis are too weak vs this guy... So skill vs balance is so tough. Too many changes to a balanced game if played right can imbalance it and create a new headache that is difficult to fix.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Players want something balanced that 1/2 of the situation is their own responsibility.


I don't know. Why it took one year for USA to invade North Africa? Right now, one turn after USA is at war, they can invade North Africa without opposition. Same for UK if BoA turns well for them.

I don't want to replicate history. It is just that big scale invasions are there too soon.

Thus, the idea to increase the cost to perform them.




AlvaroSousa -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/10/2021 9:14:17 PM)

There are always exploits to fix.



ncc1701e -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/20/2021 7:30:58 AM)

Current feedback of my Beta 10U9 PBEM games.

Me as Allies:
1. I invade North Africa in December 1941 only with UK troops and their landing ships.
2. I invade Sicily in June 1942 still only with UK troops and their landing ships.
3. And, I have USA landing ships coming...

I am doing good in the BoA. I don't think Axis has invested a lot in subs.

Me as Axis:
1. North Africa was invaded by USA in something like February 1942.
2. Brittany was just invaded end of June 1942 with three to four corps.

And here I am doing good in the BoA. So even with plenty of MMs sunk, the invasion is not a problem. Transports can't be sunk anyway.

I am convinced this is a little too early for me to do this.



ComadrejaKorp -> RE: Amphibious Invasions (2/20/2021 9:25:38 AM)

My feeling is different, it is possible to disembark soon but with how much force? On those dates, if Axis wants to crush you, he can do it, if he don't do it, it's because he has other priorities.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.579102