Landings in non-base hexes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Yamato hugger -> Landings in non-base hexes (10/7/2005 5:40:38 PM)

I was reading another thread and several people commented that landings at non-base hexes arent allowed in their games. I am wondering why not?

I am looking at "The Times Atlas of the Second World War" and this is what I see:

on page 70: there is a rail line that runs from Songkhia to Khota Bharu that isnt on the stock map. The Japs landed at 2 places in what would be hex 25,44 on the stock map about half way between the 2.

on page 72: the Japs landed at Lamon Bay. Problem is Lamon Bay is hex 43,53 on the stock map, not 44,52 as labeled. Hex 44,52 would actually be Dingalan Bay. The Japs landed here specifically to cut off forces in Naga.

on page 73: a Bn of the Kawaguchi regt landed at 40,59 (half way between Zamboanga and Cotabato).

on page 74: landings 1 hex east of Batavia (stock map hex 20,60) .

also on page 74: landings halfway between Balikapapan and Banjarmasin (stock map hex 28,65).

on page 200: projected landings east of Kagoshima (stock map hex 59,43) by I and II corps.

also on page 200: projected landings at 61,42 by IX corps (you cant even land at this hex in game except from the inland sea).

on page 201: projected landings at 67,43 (between Tokyo and Sendai) by the First Army.

I remember reading a book on the exploits of the SS Barb, and how they used to land troops in northern Japan to blow up rail lines.

The point is, they landed in undefended areas specifially to block retreats all the time in real war, why not in the game? I cant imagine landing in India, Australia, the west coast of the US without it.



Nikademus -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/7/2005 5:47:12 PM)

Many consider it gamey because the game already heavily abstracts amphibious operations making them far easier and more frequently able to be done. Throughout the war, Allied operations were continually hamstrung by lack of landing craft and troops and logistical frameworks optimized to support such a complicated operation. In WitP, as with PacWar, its much easier to preform....tie together a few AK's and go invade. Preperation points have greatly improved this and Atoll rules make haphazzard invasions risky but overall it's still reletively easy.

Landing at non-base hexes exaserbates the above issue (in many people's opinions) but that said, its up to the player to decide. This feature was put into the game from UV days through player input. Not everyone think's its gamey. Personally, i dont do it either and PBEM's i play house rule it. Then again i also dont evac LCU fragments for the express purpose of preserving the unit. Some dont think thats gamey either.



Bradley7735 -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/7/2005 5:54:16 PM)

Non base hex landings will not disrupt the landing LCU's. Landing at a base will subject you to CD guns and your LCU's will get disabled (depending on how well preped you are). Your defending surface groups will not intercept task forces landing LCU's at non-base hexes.

I'm sure there are more differences

I don't play PBEM, but if I did, I'd play with the house rule in effect.



Yamato hugger -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/7/2005 5:59:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Non base hex landings will not disrupt the landing LCU's. Landing at a base will subject you to CD guns and your LCU's will get disabled (depending on how well preped you are). Your defending surface groups will not intercept task forces landing LCU's at non-base hexes.

I'm sure there are more differences

I don't play PBEM, but if I did, I'd play with the house rule in effect.


Well I hate to point out the obvious, but the reason they landed at these sites historically was to avoid the shore guns [:'(]

As for disruption, your landing forces do indeed get disrupted, if the hex is defended. In a game a few turns ago (one of the few games where I am allies) the Jap player landed at 43,53 (NW of Naga) and I had moved the 2 Phil divisions from Naga there before he landed and I chewed him up pretty good.



WiTP_Dude -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/7/2005 6:01:26 PM)

The reason is the ground movement isn't perfect. There is this problem where you can't move to a non-base hex while under attack. If movement worked smoothly, it might not be so gamey.



Feinder -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/7/2005 7:08:38 PM)

It not even physcially possible to land in most places. Everyone things Florida is a long lovely beach. Truth is, only about 20% of it is beach. Besides the "urbanization", a lot of it is wilderness. Cypress and Mangrove swamps and 5' of slop would prohibit a landing. Or the Carolinas? Yes, they have beautiful beaches. But where you don't see as a tourist eslwhere, is the (litterally) miles of mudflats that simply lead to a swamp. No point landing there either, vehicles and supplies can't get off the beach (oh wait, there isn't a beach).

Just ask how useful it was to the Union Army land in Beaufort, SC. It looked like a GREAT landing spot. They landed virtually unopposed, and captured the town in a day.

"We'll land there, and move north to Charleston and south to Savannah!"

"Oops. This town is in the middle of a G_d-damned swamp. The roads suck, and we're stuck. I guess we'll have to actually land closer to Charleston. Everybody back on the boats!"

-F-



Yamato hugger -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/7/2005 10:42:57 PM)

There arent too many places in the world that you couldnt find someplace to land in a 60 mile hex. A few spots on Borneo (that dont have roads in them making them worthless as a landing spot anyway). Middle of Sumatra is another spot. There is a place in northern Oz litterally called "the 80 mile beach". Name any spot on the US west coast that a landing force couldnt land within 60 miles of it. You cant.

Are there shortcommings in the game? Sure. No question. Wonder if MacArthur thought it was "gamey" of the Japs to land between his forces in Naga and Manila cutting them off and trapping them? And what of the Ranger units in Normandy that had to assult the cliffs? Germans probably thought that was gamey as well.

You CHS guys can draw a little red line on the map to stop landings in places you dont think landings should be allowed in. That part isnt hard. To arbitrailly abolish all non-base landings because of a few isolated instances is insane. And not historically accurate.



ChezDaJez -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/7/2005 11:02:43 PM)

quote:

There arent too many places in the world that you couldnt find someplace to land in a 60 mile hex.


Its not just finding a place to land a couple of boats. Landing sites were often a mile of more in length. Plus factor in tidal effects, reefs, shoals, terrain just beyond the landing site, beach width, heighth of dunes, forests, swamps, rivers, and the number of suitable locations drops tremendously. Consider France. The allies determined that less than 10% of the French coastline was suitable for amphibious operations.

quote:

And what of the Ranger units in Normandy that had to assult the cliffs?
The Raiders only assaulted the cliffs so as to take out the heavy artillery covering the actual landing sites. There is no way they would have been the actual site to land forces.

In general, though I do think we should be able to land at some non-base hexes and those hexes should be shown on the map so that everyone knows which are suitable landing sites.

Chez



Yamato hugger -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/7/2005 11:05:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

The allies determined that less than 10% of the French coastline was suitable for amphibious operations.


Which means that in any given 60 mile hex, there is 6 miles of usable beach to put a landing force ashore. Not to say that every 60 mile strech has 6 miles, but on the average.

Right?



Yamato hugger -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/7/2005 11:09:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

And what of the Ranger units in Normandy that had to assult the cliffs?
The Raiders only assaulted the cliffs so as to take out the heavy artillery covering the actual landing sites. There is no way they would have been the actual site to land forces.

In general, though I do think we should be able to land at some non-base hexes and those hexes should be shown on the map so that everyone knows which are suitable landing sites.

Chez


Ahh, but while I didnt say it outright, I am not refering to landing a corps sized unit at the base of a cliff, and most likely the reason people "outlaw it" is because of a bn sized force landing to block a retreat. Which as I pointed out happened historically. And not just an isolated case. Happened all the time. Was part of the planning process.



Feinder -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/7/2005 11:31:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Which means that in any given 60 mile hex, there is 6 miles of usable beach to put a landing force ashore. Not to say that every 60 mile strech has 6 miles, but on the average.

Right?



[;)]

Clever twist.

But no that's not the way it works.

It's like saying that dry land covers 25% of the earths surface; but you certainly won't find a mile of dry land in every four as you cross the ocean.

It's not just getting onto the beach (assuming you found one), it's also being able to make headway after the first 20 yards (most natural beaches are quite narrow, certainly NOT the 200 yd wide tourist beaches).

Regarding beaches on the west coast... Not much in the way of suitable landing sites in Washington or Oregon. My (admittedly limited) observations of those coast lines is that it's VERY rocky, and you'd certainly look farther south to California. Certainly lots of natural beaches there, but just be aware that many of the beaches there (as in Florida) are "created" or "enhanced".

Not to spoil the secret of the Tooth Fairy, but if you go out to Clearwater Beach (Florida) at about 4am on a certain mornings, you'll see huge trucks filled with sand rejuvenating the beach.

-F-



Bradley7735 -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/7/2005 11:33:55 PM)

Well, there are at least two reasons it's gamey.

1: you can't defend with your surface ships. There are rules in effect that allow task forces to react to landings at bases. They won't react to non base landings. By doing so, you are gaming the system so that you don't have to fight your way in to the beach head.

2: the land combat movement rules are not good enough. By landing a bn unit behind the lines, and then the opponent can not move one unit to react to that is reason enough to not allow the "land 2 guys (or a bn) behind your lines and force your 100,000 army to surrender."

However, it doesn't really matter what you decide. If Japan games the non-base landings in 42, they're just shooting their own foot. The allied player will then use the same tactic in 44 and 45.



Andrew Brown -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 1:36:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
You CHS guys can draw a little red line on the map to stop landings in places you dont think landings should be allowed in. That part isnt hard. To arbitrailly abolish all non-base landings because of a few isolated instances is insane. And not historically accurate.


I agree that restricting landings to base hexes only is far too restrictive. I can see the arguments for having such a house rule, but in my opinion, in the balance it is far less "historical" to use such a house rule. I would not play with such a rule. it becomes particularly absurd in Australia, for example, where there are vast stretches of coastline that could have been landed on, but do not have bases in the game.

In the latest version of my map, I have made all coastal swamp hexes impossible to land on. I considered adding some other locations like this as well, such as along parts of the coast of the Great Australian Bight, and I may still do that where appropriate, but as mentioned there would be few places in the world where there is NO place to land in a 60 mile stretch of coast (outside of swamps and artcic zones). One house rule that also helps greatly, and which I DO like to play with, is no invasions from submarines allowed.




Yamato hugger -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 2:37:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Well, there are at least two reasons it's gamey.

1: you can't defend with your surface ships. There are rules in effect that allow task forces to react to landings at bases. They won't react to non base landings. By doing so, you are gaming the system so that you don't have to fight your way in to the beach head.


Certainly you can. But, in order to do it, you have to send them there. True, they dont react from a base hex, but they will react if the hex they are assigned to is the target of an invasion.

quote:


2: the land combat movement rules are not good enough. By landing a bn unit behind the lines, and then the opponent can not move one unit to react to that is reason enough to not allow the "land 2 guys (or a bn) behind your lines and force your 100,000 army to surrender."


If you put an army of 100,000 in such a position their loss wouldnt be to "gameyness", it would be they would no longer want to fight for the person that put them in such a position [;)]

This forces one to account for this. If you only put 90,000 of them troops up front and left 10,000 back to defend against this, then you wouldnt have to worry about it, no?

quote:


However, it doesn't really matter what you decide. If Japan games the non-base landings in 42, they're just shooting their own foot. The allied player will then use the same tactic in 44 and 45.


This too is true. Good for the goose and all. No dispute here.



Halsey -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 3:15:51 AM)

Here's another reason not to do non dot invasions.

The AI doesn't do them.[;)]



WiTP_Dude -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 3:28:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

This forces one to account for this. If you only put 90,000 of them troops up front and left 10,000 back to defend against this, then you wouldnt have to worry about it, no?


Both the 10,000 and 90,000 are now stuck if the enemy bothers to bombard them. It would be nice if you could shift units between non-base hex with confidence but it doesn't work that way at this point.



Yamato hugger -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 4:24:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Here's another reason not to do non dot invasions.

The AI doesn't do them.[;)]



I dont play the AI [;)]



Halsey -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 4:31:16 AM)

No problem.[;)]
Sending ampibs to land in jungle/swamp and mountain hexes works fine with WITP's mechanics.

Wouldn't want to have you as one of my field commanders in real life.[:D]
You'd probably be the first casualty during the landing.[;)]



Yamato hugger -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 5:31:55 AM)

The point to landing on a non-base hex isnt to land in a swamp, jungle, or mountain. Its to land on a rail line and move.



Feinder -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 6:53:24 AM)

quote:

The point to landing on a non-base hex isnt to land in a swamp, jungle, or mountain. Its to land on a rail line and move


Last time I checked, no amphibous landing in all of recorded history included locomotives...

[;)]

It's a matter of a house rule. I you want to land anywhere on the map, you obviously want to play a differnt kind of game, than I want to participate in. Neither do I don't mass Allied heavies and bomb AFs at night, just because I can.

That's why it's important to ask these sorts of questions before you get 2 weeks into the game.

-F-



ChezDaJez -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 6:53:25 AM)

quote:

Its to land on a rail line and move.


And do you bring your own trains too? Not trying to be smartass but I would think you would at least need control of a city before you got rail movement bonus. I know its not modeled that way but it should be.

Chez

1 lousy second, Feinder, by one lousy second!



Yamato hugger -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 8:32:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Last time I checked, no amphibous landing in all of recorded history included locomotives...


They unloaded trains at Normandy. Not on D Day, but they brought them over the beaches.

Where did I say anything about train movement? You land on the rail lines to block the enemy from using it and then move to contact. I would have hoped you could have figured that out. I can get out paintprush and paint you a prettier picture if you need it to understand the concept of blocking an enemy retreat. Better still, I'll photocopy one of my old training manuals and you can argue with the US Army on the subject if you wish.

Forgive this but I fail to see why you have to utilize a childish outburst of intentional ignorance when you disagree with someone. You arent being cute, and you arent impressing anyone. Disagree. That's your right. You want to display childish behavior, I guess thats your right as well.

[8|]



ChezDaJez -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 9:04:03 AM)

quote:

Its to land on a rail line and move.


quote:

Where did I say anything about train movement?


Your first statement above gives the impression that's what you meant. Moving along a rail hex in the game gives you a rail movement bonus regardless of whether it's deserved or not. Just another of the ground movment faults in the game.

As far as Normandy goes, locomotives were not unloaded over the beach. Some were brought to France but only after a port had been secured and repaired many weeks later.

Feinder and I posted virtually the same thought simultaneously. Your reply was the only childish outburst noted. It was uncalled for. I would suggest that if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Chez



Yamato hugger -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 9:15:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
Moving along a rail hex in the game gives you a rail movement bonus regardless of whether it's deserved or not. Just another of the ground movment faults in the game.


Yes, and how many times (not counting von Ryans Express) have you heard of defending troops taking a train out of combat? It doesnt matter what speed you move in the game fast or slow. The point is surround and capture is as old of a concept as war itself.

Edit: The examples I cited range from battalion to ARMY sized units actual and planned landings away from enemy positions to avoid casulties and to block retreats. Hell, even Patton did it in Sicily. Andy said that his map doesnt allow landings in some areas where they wouldnt be able to. I personaly dont use Andys map because I prefer to play the "standard" game but I prefer his map. Dont have room for both on my machine or I would use it.

quote:


As far as Normandy goes, locomotives were not unloaded over the beach. Some were brought to France but only after a port had been secured and repaired many weeks later.


They brought trains in over the arificial harbor. Ive seen pictures. Looking for them now.



invernomuto -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 1:35:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
2: the land combat movement rules are not good enough. By landing a bn unit behind the lines, and then the opponent can not move one unit to react to that is reason enough to not allow the "land 2 guys (or a bn) behind your lines and force your 100,000 army to surrender."


If you put an army of 100,000 in such a position their loss wouldnt be to "gameyness", it would be they would no longer want to fight for the person that put them in such a position [;)]

This forces one to account for this. If you only put 90,000 of them troops up front and left 10,000 back to defend against this, then you wouldnt have to worry about it, no?


There could be an easy solution for this problem (and for player retreat movements in general): a land unit can move from a contested hex to an enemy occupied hex BUT:

1) has great penalities (heavy disruption and fatigue)
2) Have to shock attack the enemy units in the destination hex (like river crossing rule).

If the shock attack fails, your unit surrenders and is eliminated from game.

Comments?

BYE!!!




Halsey -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 3:10:50 PM)

And how often did THAT really happen? ZERO![;)]

The Sicily end arounds were only done a couple of times, and those were tactical operations.
The Mulberry's at Normandy tooks months to build before towing them into position.

So you cite some European examples. Where did the Japanese do this in force?

As I said before, if you want to game the mechanics, go for it.[:D]



Feinder -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 4:43:31 PM)

[* sigh *]

YH, it's just a matter of "know they enemy".

If you want to land anywhere on the map, be my guest. It just won't be in a game against me.

-F-



Graycompany -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 4:44:35 PM)

I cant recall the exact place, but I think there was a landing which just off the beach was all swamp/marsh by the Americans in '43, I think it may have been either on New guinea, or the Island that Rabaul is on. It was for the most part unopposed, but was awful for the troops that did it. On a side note, can you bombard a non-base hex with ships?



Feinder -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 4:50:18 PM)

Bombard non-base hex - I -believe "nope".

I think I tried it in an early AI game, when IJA was advancing on Rangoon. I sent the RN off to bombard the place, and got 2x Torps into the side of Ramilles for my trouble.

(* Isn't it great to make mistakes vs. the AI? He's so forgiving! *)

-F-



Graycompany -> RE: Landings in non-base hexes (10/8/2005 4:57:03 PM)

LOL........... yep......... Reason I ask is that in malaya on a non-base hex I have trapped a number of allied units just north of mersing, and I keep trying to bombard, and the ships just go there and come back.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.779297