A condemnation on Long range amphibious transports

[Ktonos]

I think long range amphibious transports is bad for gameplay, and takes away from the operational realism of the game.

I've been with the SC series for years and years (since the early days of WiE) and have seen this question come and countered before, but haven't seen any recent suggestion, and with the wave of new patches and corrections, I feel obliged to put my case out there again.

Let me present my case before you burn me

Why I think that LR amphibious transports need nerfed:

1. As is the allies can just spawn waves of amphibious forces, from a far away base, and swarm the oceans until they reach an impossible destination.
2. I mean, the US shouldn't be able to sneak marines through the Jap sea, under almost max Japanese naval air cover, to invade Korea. Not without warship escorts. It should be suicidal. As is, its a good gamble.
3. If you have naval bombers with 3+ long range, you should be able to take advanced warning. Meaning, the LRT's movement shouldn't exceed the spotting range of a naval bomber.
4. As is there is no island hoping. No actual need for an invasion base as close as possible to the invasion site. For operation Overlord, the allies where considering Calais, just because it was like 1 "hex" closer than Normandie. In the Pacific they where forced to take the next island before considering the other one. Putting large amounts of men into the sea was always a huge risk.

What I would propose, is 1. to have long range amphibious transports not being able to cruise. 2. Drop readiness for each turn in sea.

Back in the day the main argument in favor of the LRTs, was that without them you cant have things like operation Torch. I'd also propose to make Op Torch an event, where the US spents X mpps over Y turns, to spawn 4 amph. transports (HQ, 2x Corps, 1 Army) near Casablanca.

[Platoonist]

Got my vote. The Atlantic portion of Operation Torch is unique in that it was conducted over a body of water where the Allies had complete control in the air and virtual control on the surface and against French Vichy colonies that considered themselves neutral at the time. Not a condition found much in the Pacific or anywhere else for that matter.

[Tanaka]

I think long range amphibious transports is bad for gameplay, and takes away from the operational realism of the game.

I've been with the SC series for years and years (since the early days of WiE) and have seen this question come and countered before, but haven't seen any recent suggestion, and with the wave of new patches and corrections, I feel obliged to put my case out there again.

Let me present my case before you burn me

Why I think that LR amphibious transports need nerfed:

1. As is the allies can just spawn waves of amphibious forces, from a far away base, and swarm the oceans until they reach an impossible destination.
2. I mean, the US shouldn't be able to sneak marines through the Jap sea, under almost max Japanese naval air cover, to invade Korea. Not without warship escorts. It should be suicidal. As is, its a good gamble.
3. If you have naval bombers with 3+ long range, you should be able to take advanced warning. Meaning, the LRT's movement shouldn't exceed the spotting range of a naval bomber.
4. As is there is no island hoping. No actual need for an invasion base as close as possible to the invasion site. For operation Overlord, the allies where considering Calais, just because it was like 1 "hex" closer than Normandie. In the Pacific they where forced to take the next island before considering the other one. Putting large amounts of men into the sea was always a huge risk.

What I would propose, is 1. to have long range amphibious transports not being able to cruise. 2. Drop readiness for each turn in sea.

Back in the day the main argument in favor of the LRTs, was that without them you cant have things like operation Torch. I'd also propose to make Op Torch an event, where the US spents X mpps over Y turns, to spawn 4 amph. transports (HQ, 2x Corps, 1 Army) near Casablanca.

I don't disagree with you. I wish they could be toned down in some way. Unrealistic invasions of far off places that would require lots of support is pretty commonplace in MP. Island hopping should absolutely be important in the Pacific. I also think the attack of amphibious transports on coastal units should be toned down some. Units were not annihilated by amphibious transports. (See Iwo Jima in real life) You have my vote as well. For some reason other than subs the Devs refuse to touch naval combat. Unfortunately I am assuming this is for the AI.

[CaesarAug]

Interesting. I suppose these “enhanced” amphibious transports are probably to assist the AI? In human vs. human gameplay, their stats could be toned down.

In any case, the suggestion of LRT action points not exceeding the passive spotting range of naval bombers is an intriguing one. But then, that would blur the difference between SRT, wouldn’t it?

What action points could a short-range amphibious transport have vs. a long-range amphibious transport?

[Ktonos]

I think that, with the reluctance to change LRTs I've seen through the years, I wouldn't expect to see making huge changes. This is why I proposed merely to have them not cruise + readiness reduction for each turn in sea (maybe hits if caught in heavy seas also?)

This way any crossing of more than a few turns, and especially in winter, would be a huge risk. Without cruise/force march, I think that well placed naval air with high long range will spot them, unless placed 100% optimally.

Also, yes, its highly unrealistic that units while in transports can be more lethal, than the units themselves when on land.

I don't know if this is done for the AI, but if so, couldn't we have both? With an option when setting up a game? (ie realistic LRTs on/off)

[CaesarAug]

As I recall, it was either Lothos or Elessar2 who
mentioned that short-ranged amphibious were not optimal for the AI to handle for countries such as the USA and Japan. In fact, the latest versions of their mods only permit LRT builds for these two countries. Can’t remember whether it’s Lothos’ TRP WAW mod or Elessar2’s War in the Pacific mod for WAW. Maybe they can chime in…

[Elessar2]

Lothos', he found issues with AI scripts when they tried to wrestle with both kinds at once.

Note Amphibs of both types used to lose -1 supply for each turn at sea, but this got changed many patches ago.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

I agree with this simple change as proposed by Ktonos:
"What I would propose, is 1. to have long range amphibious transports not being able to cruise. 2. Drop readiness for each turn in sea."

This would help curtail some really unrealistic wild wazoos that folks have done, including me.

[CaesarAug]

Well, since naval cruising for LRT is hardcoded for now, a workaround might be to reduce the base action points to maybe 6 or 8. That way, cruising would only go up to 12 or 16, far less than the default 32.

Alternatively, reduce the naval cruise multiplier factor from default 2 to 1.5 or the minimum 1.25. The game accurately registers the change on the map, but I’ve found that the action points count in the naval unit’s stats remain doubled, no doubt a bug.

As for decreasing readiness per turn at sea, I can’t think of a player workaround for that given the current game parameters.

[ThunderLizard11]

Well, since naval cruising for LRT is hardcoded for now, a workaround might be to reduce the base action points to maybe 6 or 8. That way, cruising would only go up to 12 or 16, far less than the default 32.

Alternatively, reduce the naval cruise multiplier factor from default 2 to 1.5 or the minimum 1.25. The game accurately registers the change on the map, but I’ve found that the action points count in the naval unit’s stats remain doubled, no doubt a bug.

As for decreasing readiness per turn at sea, I can’t think of a player workaround for that given the current game parameters.

I agree with this simple change as proposed by Ktonos:
"What I would propose, is 1. to have long range amphibious transports not being able to cruise. 2. Drop readiness for each turn in sea."

This would help curtail some really unrealistic wild wazoos that folks have done, including me.

A combination of these would make sense depending on what's easily doable with game engine. Definitely think this is way too gamey and unrealsitic currently. As this favors Axis, need to consider impact on game balance.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

No, do not make a change.

I wouldn't be in a hurry to make changes.
There's all kinds of unrealistic things happening, this is a game.
The best way to avoid LRT is to defend the land you want to keep.
Same with experience farming.
The Chinese refuse to battle in certain areas, because they take advantage of the readiness triggers.

How about this? Instead of spending all the Japanese MMPs on trashing Russia, build some units or use the ones you have to defend some territory.

The Japanese Navy refuses to engage. Sitting in ports, and stacking Maritime Bombers. So tough luck. The Pacific Ocean is quite huge, there wasn't great radar. My family members were involved in Operation Torch landings, it doesn't take that long to sail from Jacksonville, Florida to North Africa.

How many landings are destroyed? In recent games, all kinds of Allied landings are completely wiped out in Southern France, Italy, and early Normandy raids.

How about lessening the range of Maritime Bombers?

To sum this up: Axis players (specifically Japanese) If you don't like losing empty Capitals, ports, or any position you deem importmant, try defending it. Garrison costs 50 MMPs. Spending all your MMPs on attacking Russia or doing LRT yourself will cause this problem.

[Ktonos]

Most of the game is realistic. In the tactical operations there are some unavoidable things, at least in the strategic aspect of it, it is realistic.

You mentioned Japan going for Russia and not covering its coasts, so you probably thing that I am saying this about LRTs because of our game, but I am not. The "cruise the LTR to an open port" tactic is one that I am employing too. Nothing to do with what opponents do. Im also doing it, because the game allows it.

Strategically, there would be no sense to send a division of marines, not to say a corps, or an army, that is about 50,000 men, across endless patches of contested waters, to land to a major port, that would probably be undefended, hoping that no air or navy would be encountered in the way.

As is, garrisons are paper for late game amphibious landings. But most importantly, as you said, the Pacific is vast, so even with the Jap fleet contesting the ocean, sneaky transports can find their way to the heartland. Also, whoever spreads his fleet to stop this strategy, will be subject to defeat in detail by the enemy concentrating his fleet to destroy the spread out warships.

I am not speaking for personal gain here, lol. Just what I consider that would be an improvement to this awesome game.

[Platoonist]

But most importantly, as you said, the Pacific is vast, so even with the Jap fleet contesting the ocean, sneaky transports can find their way to the heartland. Also, whoever spreads his fleet to stop this strategy, will be subject to defeat in detail by the enemy concentrating his fleet to destroy the spread out warships.

The Japanese maintained an early warning system of sorts to help cover the vast distances in the Pacific. A fleet of about 116 small picket ships posted about 700 miles out from the Home Islands. This is what famously tripped up the Doolittle Raid task force and prompted Admiral Halsey to launch Doolittle's bombers earlier than desired. This picket fleet was also used later in the war to give early warning of inbound B-29 raids.

I suppose the the closest game equivalent would be to keep a string of relatively cheap motor torpedo boats out to act as a tripwire. You almost need something cheaper and tamer though to simulate the real thing.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

It's just a game. Many of the Top Players do all kinds of LRT with the Japanese: invade Pearl Harbor, Australia and/or India. So it's both sides that use the LRT.

Stealing "empty" ports with AA-guns as LRT is the most popular and cheapest Kamikaze method. Send a sub first and scout path with Maritime Bomber.

The game would need advanced with "Intercepts" for Naval.

Speaking of Planes. The Japanese lost their Bomber. Should they get a couple Kamikazes when Okinawa is invaded?

[kaigab]

It's one of the most unrealistic aspect of this game and i agree that it should be limited.

In MP you also get some players doing the turn several times looking for the empty port to invade.

I would probably just inhibit the possibility to do amphibious landing after cruise, not sure if it is possible.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Lets get into specifics.

What *key cities are being left undefended?

Japanese: Korea for sure. That's the best bang for the US/India/British gamble. As defender, spend 150 MMPs for 3 garrisons & put a ship in the port. That at least requires Allies to scout with Sub first, and requires marines, not AA-guns.

Italy: gotta put some dudes in the cities.

So, the Axis have control and momentum going into 1942. At that point, Japan, Italy have decisions to make. Will they continue to buy toys/troops/tech or actually buy some units to defend something. I'd argue, most Japanese players spend their MMPs smashing Eastern Russia.

[havoc1371]

As previously suggested, I would propose simply not allowing LRT to land if they cruise. Eliminates the possibility of extremely long range landings.

[Ktonos]

I think this would be a simple but very effective solution.

Regarding the Japs investing 150 mpps in garrisons for Korea and placing a ship in port: well it really isn't just 150. Because they already have to invest much more in garrisons for islands. And if they place a ship in every important port, then they can't spread out in the Pacific to block stray LRTs. Not to say that Japan needs to keep 70% of their fleet concentrated.

I have seen only Japan players dow Russia if China goes extremely well. The Japan v Russia thing is usually a late game development dependant on their respective main fronts. I don't think its a tactic at all. It usually goes as such: if Russia does good vs Germans, they might go for Manchuria. If not, no. If Japan goes well vs China, they might go for Siberia. If not, no.

Regarding Italy, yes they are forced to keep something in every port, and even inland NM cities that are reachable by landing and then capture by amphib units. Ofcourse, lets not forget, that Husky could only be in Sicily and only after the capture of Tunisia. I mean, in reality, those dozens of miles closer played a role.

[Mithrilotter]

It only takes a cruise ship, not a fast navy destroyer, only five days to sail from the West Coast to Hawaii. In the game, one has to naval cruise any ship to get to Hawaii in just one turn. Therefore, I don’t have an issue with the normal or cruising speed of long-range amphibious transports.

I feel that what isn’t fully modeled is naval supply of amphibiously delivered land units. These ground units aren’t living off the land for their munitions and fuel. Those essential supplies are being shipped from their homeland.

The old board game, Third Reich, only allowed amphibious invasions within X number of hexes from the nearest controlled port. This worked well even for long-range invasions, like Torch, as Torch was within X number of hexes from Gibraltar.
Perhaps, long-range amphibious transports shouldn’t be allowed to unload on a beach unless that beach is within X number of hexes from a friendly controlled port. This number, X could be modified by nationality and upwards with increased long-range tech.

[petedalby]

What a great suggestion!