long range amphibious transports seem somewhat overtuned

[HamburgerMeat]

A german corp was holding Rome (a major capital at 12 supply), had decent morale, and was linked to a 3-star HQ. Ground attacks versus such a defensible spot did the expected 1-2 damage. However, a level 5 long-range amphibious craft did 4 damage to the corp without seemingly taking damage itself. That seems like a bit much.

Essentially, Axis has to cede all coastlines to Allies due to the power of amphibious attacks. That seems somewhat unrealistic when considering the difficulties of actual amphibious attacks and landings. Combined with the fact that the LRA has 32 range, isn't it already powerful enough?

EDIT: Upon further examination, it looks like soft and hard attack are quite high compared to other forms of attack. So I guess the solution is to put non hard or soft targets along the coastline, something cheap like anti air. Seems somewhat gamey, but without a way to increase defense values versus transports I think this is the current best solution

[HamburgerMeat]

However, I still believe that anti-air units shouldnt be able to turn into a LRA. The base unit does not matter for the LRA, the damage the LRAs do is dependent on Amphibious tech level. But the cost of the unit is factored into the cost of the LRA. Anti air units (only costing 100mpp base) therefore can be liberally used and cheaply disposed of (costing about 33mpps to turn into an LRA), all the while they do overtuned damage to coastal units.

[HamburgerMeat]

Axis players who want to protect Japan therefore should NOT use hard/soft base units for coastal areas where you expect to be attacked. Maritime bombers are a must. Anti air units are cheap defenders.

Allied players should max out LRA technology as the USA (maybe UK too) and use LRA antiair units as coastal "battering rams." They are cheap enough to not worry so much about their loss. Furthermore, the use of suicide LRA antiairs will force axis to pick between hitting your ships versus hitting your LRAs.

[Elessar2]

I did not fully realize the above, but damn HM is 100% correct, unless the devs want to correct us here. I had assumed that the amphib unit's stats were based on the base land unit's stats before it went to sea (thus a SF would be more effective than say a cavalry unit). I'd thus declare that all land units should have an amphib rating for how effective it is attacking while embarked.

[Hubert Cater]

HM is correct, and I guess the idea is the effectiveness is more inherent to the landing craft itself (plus the abstraction of landing support ships it would have when attacking from the landing craft prior to unloading), versus what unit is within the landing craft.

[Bavre]

A further aspect is that landing craft are unit type transport and no land unit seems to have any sort of defense against those.

[James Taylor]

Except that the landing unit, whether amphibious or airborne, can suffer losses in the effort to take the hex.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

When the US Marines land, nothing will stop them. What gets me, when the Japs are defending, and attacker takes no damage. The Battle of Manilla is huge in the Pacific. It's easier to take swarming with 6+ LR Marines then grind and walk. Like to see the Philippines get some jungle, partisans and side action.

[LoneRunner]

What gets me, when the Japs are defending, and attacker takes no damage.

I agree, landing craft should incur losses from an amphibious attack. IRL every amphibious assault resulted in serious casualties on the attacker. In WaW an amphibious attack only causes losses on the defender. Doesn't make sense.

I'd take it a step further, I think the attacker should always incur losses from an amphibious attack. A player should not be able to launch multiple amphibious attacks with impunity.

Also, I agree with HM, anti-air should not be converted into an landing craft. Also, cavalry and anti-tank should not be convertible.

[Taifun]

What gets me, when the Japs are defending, and attacker takes no damage.

I agree, landing craft should incur losses from an amphibious attack. IRL every amphibious assault resulted in serious casualties on the attacker. In WaW an amphibious attack only causes losses on the defender. Doesn't make sense.

I'd take it a step further, I think the attacker should always incur losses from an amphibious attack. A player should not be able to launch multiple amphibious attacks with impunity.

Also, I agree with HM, anti-air should not be converted into an landing craft. Also, cavalry and anti-tank should not be convertible.

I also agree this gentlemen. AA, cavalry and anti-tank (if convertible) should not be able to attack and the attacker should always incur losses from an amphibious attack. Amphibious operations have always been very delicate and dangerous, even in good weather and with overwhelming forces.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Ha! If you haven't lost a *key city to British Long Range Calvary, French Madmen Corp unit in 1940 or watch Yankee AA units suicide into Korea looking for ports, you haven't played enough players.

[SittingDuck]

So it is about losses to the amph transports and to the attacking land unit, if I understand correctly.

I checked the editor. Land units have pretty strong attack values against transports, but I suspect that represents againsts transports in port. OR it represents against the basic TROOP transport (not amph landing units). The word 'transport' in the editor is kinda vague here (for which transports can by affected by land units).

Perhaps in the Combat Data table the Amph Landing penalties need to be increased? Depending on what you want, for the transports and/or for the attacking land units. Also, the Amph units have a lot of incremental defense increases built in, such that it is hard for them (the flotilla) to sustain damage. That can be adjusted in the particular country's data file.

Seems there are two attacker damage issues. Are both needing to be addressed?

[SittingDuck]

A further aspect is that landing craft are unit type transport and no land unit seems to have any sort of defense against those.

This is indeed true. It can definitely be corrected.

[Bavre]

Land unit atk vs transport is irrelevant here, because it only counts when the land unit is the attacker. Def vs transport is what determines how hard you hit back vs an amphibious attack and since that is always 0 you never hit back at all.
Another curiosity is the way landing craft gain bonus atk values through tech. Basically you want to put anything on the coast that is not unit type hard or soft (i.e. all types of inf), the ground crew of a bomber wing swinging its wrenches is literally better here than an elite army, at least until to enemy unit lands.
This all seems to lead to a lot of cheese and counter cheese. Man I'm hungry now!

[SittingDuck]

What I understand, and makes sense, is Hubert's comment that the attack value of the amph units is, "the abstraction of landing support ships it would have when attacking from the landing craft". Makes sense.

Now, perhaps that attack increment needs to get throttled down.

And I would think that defense against transport units needs to be enabled for land units. That is pretty ridiculous.

[Elessar2]

A complicating factor here is the decision several patches back when amphibs were only given one seaborne attack. If you make their attacks weaker, then I'd support allowing extra attacks again. In addition, while they apparently don't take many casualties in the attack phase per se, they typically do when they finally land. If you have them take significant damage on both the attack and on the landing, they'll be easily counterattacked to oblivion after they disembark.

[LoneRunner]

A complicating factor here is the decision several patches back when amphibs were only given one seaborne attack. If you make their attacks weaker, then I'd support allowing extra attacks again. In addition, while they apparently don't take many casualties in the attack phase per se, they typically do when they finally land. If you have them take significant damage on both the attack and on the landing, they'll be easily counterattacked to oblivion after they disembark.

I kind of look at landing on a defended beach versus an undefended beach as Omaha Beach vs Utah Beach. Omaha Beach was moderately defended by an experienced unit. Utah was relatively empty. The USA slammed unit after unit into Omaha beach until finally breaking through. In the game, I look at the assaults by ATs on defending units as similar to the attacks by multiple units on Omaha Beach. Each attacking unit incurred massive losses until finally breaking through.

I can't imagine one of those units that assaulted Omaha Beach, pulling back offshore, then landing on empty Utah Beach and assaulting Omaha Beach from the flank. Those units were absolutely spent in the initial attack. They took weeks or months to recover. IRL the USA landed new units on Utah Beach and in the two week/month turn of WaW, the new units could assault Omaha Beach from the flank.

However, in WaW, a unit assaults a defended beach, incurs no losses, then lands on an adjacent open hex, and assaults again. IRL that just wouldn't happen. Not even close.

Assigning losses on AT attacks would at least provide some realism to the difficulty of launching amphibious attacks.

[SittingDuck]

Thanks for the responses.

I guess we should clarify goals first: do we want amph units to take some losses, or the attacking land unit?

I thought the OP had brought up the talk about the amph landing units themselves (or flotilla).

[Chernobyl]

I'm not entirely certain but apparently all land units have a defense value of 0 vs transports? So the only defense value you get is the terrain bonus?

In any case, the terrain bonuses for defense from amphibs seem low to me. For example, mountains and high mountains only give a bonus of 1 vs transports. Towns give 1, cities give 2. Amphibious tech can be improved 5 times, giving a tremendously powerful attack from the sea. The fact that this transport unit takes zero damage guaranteed is only part of the problem. I believe it should be incredibly impractical to take cities and mountains from the sea, given that they are defended. Even towns, I believe, should be a bit tougher. There wasn't an attempt to directly take Le Havre or say Cherbourg, Naples Manila or Brest directly from the sea for a reason. In game it's pretty easy to take these towns from the sea even if there is a defender.

I think the idea for the sea attack was to make it possible to conquer one-hex islands that have a defender, but what they actually do is make it suicide to leave a unit on the coast, even in a town mountain or city.

[Bavre]

I'm not entirely certain but apparently all land units have a defense value of 0 vs transports? So the only defense value you get is the terrain bonus?

Yes, and just like entrenchment, terrain bonus just helps to mitigate defender losses but does not harm the attacker. You can also somewhat mitigate the amphibs power by not putting infantery at the coast. Their other attacks appart from soft and hard do not increase as dramatically.