Invasion silliness - fix in ATG?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Invasion silliness - fix in ATG?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Invasion silliness - fix in ATG?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Invasion silliness - fix in ATG? - 10/31/2010 7:12:27 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Something that would be good to fix in ATG is the ability to invade directly of landing ships into a port, and destroy any fleets or air forces stationed there.

In a game I'm playing (and I'm not telling the player off - it's a fair tactic as long as the game allows it), unescorted landing craft did just that - while loaded aircraft carriers, cruisers & destroyers in the target hex did nothing.

Had I known the capability existed to do so I might have garrisoned the city - or possibly not thinking it was to outlandish to ever happen

! lol

And of course there remains the option of landing in an adjacent hex & moving in...

But generally IMO air and naval should relocate to somewhere within their movement range if possible, rather than be destroyed by land advancing.

Of course they should take a big hit in readiness for doing such an emergency evac, and/or lose some proportion of their force due to being unable to be moved - probably something like only the % ready have the opportunity to get away.

Post #: 1

RE: Invasion silliness - fix in ATG? - 10/31/2010 10:56:00 PM

Widell

Posts: 913
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: Trollh�ttan, Sweden
Status: offline

Just the thought of unescorted landing craft moving in to kill off loaded aircraft carriers, cruisers & destroyers is a bit strange. I'd guess the commanders of the ships would have at least fired a warning shot or two before opening up the hatches to flood the ships. Maybe even launched the occasional aircraft?

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 2

RE: Invasion silliness - fix in ATG? - 11/2/2010 6:39:04 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

To be completely accurate is wasn't the landing craft that did the killing!

But yeah - I think that another thing that could be changed is that if you are landing in a hex that contains naval you should probably have to fight the naval presence first- so you can send in a bombardment/combat force and then land when they have won the battle.

(in reply to Widell)

Post #: 3

RE: Invasion silliness - fix in ATG? - 11/2/2010 7:52:00 AM

Widell

Posts: 913
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: Trollh�ttan, Sweden
Status: offline

He, he. I know. Just tries to imagine the scene in a real situation... I fully agree with what you're saying. The rules for this needs to change in future versions.

Ships with guns should fire against attackers, and at least be allowed to try to rebase. Given that could be hard since you'd now have to have escorts to your invasion fleet.
Aircraft should be allowed to try to attack / rebase.
An element of surprise might be needed, to make it possible to catch ships at anchor and aircraft on the ground and destroy them with a proper attack. Not as a secondary effect of unarmed landing craft appearing on the beach :-)

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 4

RE: Invasion silliness - fix in ATG? - 11/2/2010 10:33:38 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Yep I'd agree with all that :)

Perhaps the chance of each and every SFT escaping could be linked to their readiness - roll for each SFT - maybe all get away, maybe none - and take a hit on readiness in the next turn depending on how well they make their roll?

(in reply to Widell)

Post #: 5

RE: Invasion silliness - fix in ATG? - 11/2/2010 7:25:36 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

There were other requests floating around for addition of Naval interception rules. If done well, some sort of interception rules might prohibit this kind of 'sploit.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 6

RE: Invasion silliness - fix in ATG? - 11/3/2010 5:23:49 PM

Vic

Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline

It is possible to embed land forces inside a naval unit so wherever you dock the ships always have their own complement of land defense against such an occasion as above.

But to be honest i did not consider this myself an issue. Its very easy with minimal garrison to defend against amphibious assault (which gives attackers big penalty). Especially cause most ports are towns and can be deeply entrenched in.

Other reason i did not implement evacs for sea and air is that they represent the result of a surprise overrun. It will make the player think twice about stationing aircraft close to the front for example. It should also make the player think twice about leaving ports ungarrisoned. I like that effect very much.

The partial fleeing suggesting is interesting though.. i'll give it some more thought. But dont expect to see it in AT Gold at first release.

By the way on a more positive note : A complaint that has been adressed is the mega air stack problem. Wonder where that thead has gone? :)

best,
Vic

_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 7

RE: Invasion silliness - fix in ATG? - 11/3/2010 7:42:43 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

To be honest, I've had some very memorable moments playing against the AI when I captured a city or port in a suprise attack and bagged a huge airforce or navy in the process. It was usually a turning point in a toughly fought game and it was all good fun at the same time.

Good point about the SFT embedding in naval units, I haven't thought about that one.

Vic - tongue in cheek comment - You've stickied one such thread about mega airstacks.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to Vic)

Post #: 8

RE: Invasion silliness - fix in ATG? - 11/4/2010 7:03:36 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Vic it is easy to do if you know that you need to!� I didn't, coming back to the game from a holiday of a couple of years,and so am being screwed because of lack of knowledge.

Now you might say that newbies get screwed by experienced players....which would be true too.....but then newbies might be expecting "sensible" operations if the rules done tell them otherwise! :)

I don't expect it in 1st release....but it is something I expect some day...or perhaps the intercept Jeffrey mentioned :)

IMO the calling it a "surprise" aspect is not realistic in a strategic level game with month long turns.

And if naval can evacuate then why not air? There are examples of them doing so under fire such as the nearest airfields that supplied Stalingrad when they were over-run by the Russians. Getting over-run could still cause serious casualties..as it should...but IMO it is just wrong that the units are killed outright.

Thanks for reading...I've had my say and been seen & discussed...not much else one can ask for in the 1st instance :)

< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 11/4/2010 7:07:32 AM >

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 9

RE: Invasion silliness - fix in ATG? - 11/4/2010 5:44:18 PM

Vic

Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Vic it is easy to do if you know that you need to!� I didn't, coming back to the game from a holiday of a couple of years,and so am being screwed because of lack of knowledge.

Now you might say that newbies get screwed by experienced players....which would be true too.....but then newbies might be expecting "sensible" operations if the rules done tell them otherwise! :)

I don't expect it in 1st release....but it is something I expect some day...or perhaps the intercept Jeffrey mentioned :)

IMO the calling it a "surprise" aspect is not realistic in a strategic level game with month long turns.

And if naval can evacuate then why not air? There are examples of them doing so under fire such as the nearest airfields that supplied Stalingrad when they were over-run by the Russians. Getting over-run could still cause serious casualties..as it should...but IMO it is just wrong that the units are killed outright.

Thanks for reading...I've had my say and been seen & discussed...not much else one can ask for in the 1st instance :)

Yes in understand your argument. And I am trying to improve the documentation for AT Gold compared to the AT manual.

@all,
see other thread. i am still looking for volunteers to help out with writing in december!

best regards,
Vic

_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 10

RE: Invasion silliness - fix in ATG? - 11/4/2010 5:48:56 PM

Vic

Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Vic - tongue in cheek comment - You've stickied one such thread about mega airstacks.

seriously? where?

_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 11

RE: Invasion silliness - fix in ATG? - 11/4/2010 6:47:41 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Vic - tongue in cheek comment - You've stickied one such thread about mega airstacks.

seriously? where?

Ya, well that comment was maybe a bit misleading. In the George v Seille AAR thread the discussion came UP IIRC. I'm going by memory, which I'm finding is increasingly flawed.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to Vic)

Post #: 12

RE: Invasion silliness - fix in ATG? - 11/5/2010 7:14:52 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Vic it is easy to do if you know that you need to!� I didn't, coming back to the game from a holiday of a couple of years,and so am being screwed because of lack of knowledge.

Now you might say that newbies get screwed by experienced players....which would be true too.....but then newbies might be expecting "sensible" operations if the rules done tell them otherwise! :)

I don't expect it in 1st release....but it is something I expect some day...or perhaps the intercept Jeffrey mentioned :)

IMO the calling it a "surprise" aspect is not realistic in a strategic level game with month long turns.

And if naval can evacuate then why not air? There are examples of them doing so under fire such as the nearest airfields that supplied Stalingrad when they were over-run by the Russians. Getting over-run could still cause serious casualties..as it should...but IMO it is just wrong that the units are killed outright.

Thanks for reading...I've had my say and been seen & discussed...not much else one can ask for in the 1st instance :)

Yes in understand your argument. And I am trying to improve the documentation for AT Gold compared to the AT manual.

@all,
see other thread. i am still looking for volunteers to help out with writing in december!

best regards,
Vic

Are you trying to have the manual finished by December ?

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to Vic)

Post #: 13

RE: Invasion silliness - fix in ATG? - 11/30/2010 11:42:30 PM

CSO_Talorgan

Posts: 768
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

I captured a city or port in a suprise attack

Didn't Patton do this historically, on the north coast of Sicily?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Good point about the SFT embedding in naval units, I haven't thought about that one.

Don't most warships have a few marines on board?

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 14

RE: Invasion silliness - fix in ATG? - 12/1/2010 8:59:41 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CSO_Talorgan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

I captured a city or port in a suprise attack

Didn't Patton do this historically, on the north coast of Sicily?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Good point about the SFT embedding in naval units, I haven't thought about that one.

Don't most warships have a few marines on board?

Good observations, just shows how restricted my thinking has been I suppose, but yeah load the ships with fighting men, seems like a good idea. I do like the suprise captures, like I stated above they are fun.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to CSO_Talorgan)

Post #: 15