Shore Bombardment Question

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Shore Bombardment Question

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] >> World in Flames >> Shore Bombardment Question

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Shore Bombardment Question - 7/10/2014 1:26:28 PM

tacfire

Posts: 138
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline

In my currnet global war campaign game, Japanese land units are on the ground in the Philippines attacking Manilla.

I was surprised that the game allowed me to use shore bombardment on Manilla from the China Sea.

Is this a correct interpretation of the game rules?
Manilla is a (no invasion) hex. But shore bombardment can still be used on these type of hexes?

Post #: 1

RE: Shore Bombardment Question - 7/10/2014 1:41:44 PM

Joseignacio

Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

It's not the same requirements:

quote:

11.16.2 Shore bombardment
Shore bombardment lets you support a land attack with your SCS. You can shore bombard a coastal hex with any face-up SCS in the sea area (AsA/MiF option 25: except for those carrying cargo ~ see 11.4.5).
Only the attacking side can use shore bombardment.

quote:

You may only invade an enemy controlled coastal hex that has at least 1 all-sea hexside (at least part, but not necessarily all, of this coastal hexside must touch upon the sea area where the TRS is located).

Not sure if this is The Reason, but depending on the hex it could be One Reason why.

< Message edited by Joseignacio -- 7/10/2014 2:41:43 PM >

(in reply to tacfire)

Post #: 2

RE: Shore Bombardment Question - 7/10/2014 3:58:58 PM

Extraneous

Posts: 1810
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline

In the original WiF you could bombard and invade Manila.

MWif went to the European scale and Manila suddenly became landlocked. Which is strange since is adjacent to Manila Bay.

All the MWiF maps I found show Manila surrounded by islands or land hexes. To bad no one has bothered to post a screen shot of the Philippines.

< Message edited by Extraneous -- 7/10/2014 4:58:37 PM >

_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Joseignacio)

Post #: 3

RE: Shore Bombardment Question - 7/10/2014 4:52:06 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

Joseignacio's answer is a correct citation of the rules.

Basically, any hex in which one or more hexsides is (fully or partially) adjacent to a sea area is a coastal hex. Manila has portions of hexside(s) adjacent to both the South China Sea and China Sea and can be bombarded from both sea areas; it has fully-adjacent hexsides to neither.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Extraneous)

Post #: 4

RE: Shore Bombardment Question - 7/10/2014 10:38:32 PM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

So that would mean Manila isn't landlocked then, I guess?

It's not directly invadeable at MWiF scale. Japan has to land where they really did, if they want to get close to it.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 7/10/2014 11:42:34 PM >

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 5

RE: Shore Bombardment Question - 7/11/2014 7:01:28 AM

Joseignacio

Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

As I mentioned in a recent post in another thread, I have been using more advanced and updated rulesets for some years now (they seem to have become frantic about solving old problems, lately), so I was not sure about wether in the RAW7 which MWIF is based on, you needed or needed not to invade from deep waters.

I cannot find any rule (in this rulebook) where you need to invade from deep waters, so Manila should be invadable.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 6

RE: Shore Bombardment Question - 7/11/2014 10:35:12 AM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

Here is RAW (on which MWIF is based):

You may only invade an enemy controlled coastal hex that has at least
1 all-sea hexside (at least part, but not necessarily all, of this coastal
hexside must touch upon the sea area where the TRS is located).

So you can't invade Manila. You can shore bombard the place, but not invade.

One thing which I've always found strange in WiF is that if you have two fleets providing shore bombardment (one offensive, one defensive) to the same land attack, that there isn't an automatic naval battle occuring first... It seems to me that the admirals would want to kill the enemy ships first...

< Message edited by Centuur -- 7/11/2014 11:37:50 AM >

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Joseignacio)

Post #: 7

RE: Shore Bombardment Question - 7/11/2014 12:05:44 PM

Joseignacio

Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

Does "The sea area" mean "deep waters"?

Not so sure...

quote:

2.1.2 Sea areas
The seas are divided into areas by dark blue lines (called sea area borders). Each sea area is individually named (e.g. �RED SEA�). Each sea area contains a sea-box which regulates movement and combat at sea.

Not so clear. But:

quote:

11.18.3 TRS supply
A face-up TRS at sea has 1 reorganisation point it can use for units on a coastal hex in the sea area. The TRS can�t be carrying any cargo.

Here it looks like the coastal hex is part of the Sea Area.

< Message edited by Joseignacio -- 7/11/2014 1:16:43 PM >

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 8

RE: Shore Bombardment Question - 7/11/2014 1:33:36 PM

Extraneous

Posts: 1810
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
One thing which I've always found strange in WiF is that if you have two fleets providing shore bombardment (one offensive, one defensive) to the same land attack, that there isn't an automatic naval battle occurring first... It seems to me that the admirals would want to kill the enemy ships first...

Think of it as a timing issue.

Fleet A steams up and shore bombards Unit X and leaves.
Fleet B is sailing to intercept but arrives late and fails to make contact with Fleet A
So Fleet B fires in support of Unit X instead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio
Here it looks like the coastal hex is part of the Sea Area.

Yes the coastal hex is part of the Sea Area it is just not necessarily able to be invaded.

_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Joseignacio)

Post #: 9

RE: Shore Bombardment Question - 7/11/2014 1:41:37 PM

Joseignacio

Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
One thing which I've always found strange in WiF is that if you have two fleets providing shore bombardment (one offensive, one defensive) to the same land attack, that there isn't an automatic naval battle occurring first... It seems to me that the admirals would want to kill the enemy ships first...

Think of it as a timing issue.

Fleet A steams up and shore bombards Unit X and leaves.
Fleet B is sailing to intercept but arrives late and fails to make contact with Fleet A
So Fleet B fires in support of Unit X instead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio
Here it looks like the coastal hex is part of the Sea Area.

Yes the coastal hex is part of the Sea Area it is just not necessarily able to be invaded.

What are you thinking as possibles reasons to not being invadable? I mentioned upstairs that while you can bombard any coastal hex, if you want to invade, it needs to have one complete hexside all-sea. This is one case. More?

(in reply to Extraneous)

Post #: 10

RE: Shore Bombardment Question - 7/11/2014 2:30:06 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

Joseignacio:

If memory serves, there were two major groups of constraint on amphibious invasions during the war:
- logistical/operational constraints
- physical/geographical constraints

These constraints are not well represented in (M)WiF - in fact, they are barely present at all, as far as I can see.

For example:

(1) coastal artillery and mining basically don't show up in the game, with the exception of the restrictions on naval movement in and out of the Med, through the English Channel, and in and out of the Baltic. Weather is also extremely un-granular given how it operates homogenously across huge segments of the Earth all at once.

(2) the time and place chosen for the invasion of Normandy occurred within a fairly narrow window of opportunity as regards tides, shoreline conditions, logistical support, and weather. Except for impulse-by-impulse weather, (M)WiF does not represent these kinds of constraints the Allies faced in advance of Overlord at all. The Allies can send their forces to sea to sit around for nearly two months, and then invade when and where they please, and a single convoy point, with no additional investment for the Mulberry ports, can keep the entire invading force in supply from the UK.

That being the case, I think it is a reasonable fudge (*) to constrain amphibious invasion in (M)WiF as the rules currently do, by requiring access to an all-sea hexside, as a way of representing the real-world constraints in the game without having to tack on additional modelling or rules complexity.

In addition, as far as I can see, the concept of "deep waters" is not a good fit for the (M)WiF map as it is - there is no hex "terrain" of "deep waters", nor a corresponding hexside. I dare say the map scale is too large to support such granularity.

(*) Given the way that a turn-based, hex-based wargame distorts time and space for the sake of playability, I'm not even sure it can be called a fudge.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Joseignacio)

Post #: 11

RE: Shore Bombardment Question - 7/11/2014 4:51:34 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

If you want deep water and more accurate invasion simulation, you need to play War in the Pacific

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 12

RE: Shore Bombardment Question - 7/11/2014 6:36:35 PM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

Deep water is not the concept. Full sea hexside is. So Manila is not invadeable - see picture in post 5. There is no full sea hexside on the Manila hex.

The other restriction is the sea area the TRS/Amphs are in must touch upon that full sea hexside, so the hex west of Manila can only be invaded from the China sea and the hex to the southwest of Manila may only be invaded from the South China sea.

Likewise the hex southeast of Manila can be invaded from the South China Sea but not from the Bismarck Sea (no full sea hexside touching the Bismarck Sea.

Finally, the hex east of Manila is invadeable from both the China Sea and Bismarck Sea as it has full sea hexsides onto both.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 7/11/2014 7:41:01 PM >

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 13

RE: Shore Bombardment Question - 7/14/2014 9:16:55 AM

Joseignacio

Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

Thanks you both. Although I have played WIF for 10-15 years now, i didn't learn reading the rules, but through a friend who was explaining the game as we were playing (as you can imagine, the first games were a short and disastrous). This system proved pretty bad, since he had his own mistakes and I added mine. Later I read the rules, but always biased by what I had already "learnt".

"Deep waters" instead of "All water" is one of them... I think that because of so many "mines" caused by this bias I will never handle the game 100%, no matter how experienced I get.

< Message edited by Joseignacio -- 7/14/2014 10:44:38 AM >

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 14