Landing in a non-base hex

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: treespider
Actually thinking about this...would Cherbourg be considered the immediate "base" objective of the Normandy landings?

No Cherbourg was a campaign objective. There were 5 or 6 smaller ports that were the D-day objectives.

Jim

Ahhh I always thought the immediate "base" objectives were Caen and Cherbourg, I was not aware of those 5 or 6 smaller ports...wonder why they bothered with the mulberries?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: treespider
Actually thinking about this...would Cherbourg be considered the immediate "base" objective of the Normandy landings?

No Cherbourg was a campaign objective. There were 5 or 6 smaller ports that were the D-day objectives.

Jim

Wasn't Caen one? And it took a month to capture?

Isn't Normandy among the best examples of "landing up the coast" in WWII? There was no hope of building an operating base or large airfield at the beachhead. If WWII had been AE the Allies would have been forced to sail into Caen harbor and accept whatever horrible casualties ensued, "just because."

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: treespider
Actually thinking about this...would Cherbourg be considered the immediate "base" objective of the Normandy landings?

No Cherbourg was a campaign objective. There were 5 or 6 smaller ports that were the D-day objectives.

Jim

Wasn't Caen one? And it took a month to capture?

Isn't Normandy among the best examples of "landing up the coast" in WWII? There was no hope of building an operating base or large airfield at the beachhead. If WWII had been AE the Allies would have been forced to sail into Caen harbor and accept whatever horrible casualties ensued, "just because."

What was Omaha beach then? An unopposed landing up the coast?

[PMCN]

There were no "port" objectives for D-day.  The allies knew that they could not capture an intact working port so they brought their own in the mulberries.  The overall goal; however, was the capture of a port.  Cherbourg would have been ideal but it took several months to get into operation and eventually Antwerp was captured and that still took several months to resume normal operation.  Until then the temporary Mulberries kept a lot of the invading armies supplied.  They also had an underwater pipeline to bring fuel across.

The beaches for hundreds of miles of coast were studied in detail including commando raids to collect rock-soil-sand samples.  The actual choice of landing sites for the invasion were made based on a variety of criteria.  Another thing that was learned from Dieppe.

The planning for Overlord was upwards of 2 years.  The allies could not just land anywhere, the larger the force you are talking about the more true this is.   And Overlord would have been outright impossible without the Mulberries, and the storm that disabled some of them, had they not been brought back into operational status would have caused the invasion to fail.  You can't support that many men by landing supplies on a beach.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely

There were no "port" objectives for D-day. 

Well off the top of my head there was Arromanches and Port-en-Bessin. Those two were probably the largest of the small D-Day objective ports. All of the small ports (I think there were 5 or 6 of them) along the coast served the landings, but allied planners knew they weren’t large enough to supply the invasions adequately, so they built the Mulberries. In WitP terms the small ports would be 1's with Port-en-Bessin and Arromanches perhaps being 2's.

Had they planned for and expected to take Cherbourg any time soon after the invasion, there would have been no need for Mulberries. But they knew it was going to take some time to get into Cherbourg, so they didn’t count on the port facilities in their planning.

As to not building an airfield at Normandy… The allies had something like 17 airfields in service within the first month. Later the number was double or triple that. The main problem was getting enough aviation fuel ashore, not in building more air strips.

Jim

[FrankE]

Where is it written that players can't defend a non-base hex? If you're that worried about it, entrench some troops there. It seems to me that both sides went out of their way to hit lightly defended beaches whenever possible so it should be allowed in game.

About the only change that I'd like to see is a minimum disruption penalty if you do invade a non-base hex to simulate the chaos of landing in the middle of nowhere. Something along the lines of at least 30% disruption for non-mechanized troops and 50% for anything mechanized.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

What was Omaha beach then? An unopposed landing up the coast?

Omaha was the hardest of the five. Gold, Juno, and Sword were cakewalks compared to trying a direct assault on a developed harbor.

Even Omaha had advantages over a harbor--width, ability of close-gunfire support to get within 2000 yards of the beach and stay mobile, and open maneuvering room just behind the beach. Not to mention the ability to be pounded by air just beofre the invasion without blowing up valuable assets you wanted to use yourself, later.

But Omaha also had the advantage not found in the game of being a logistics pipe of monumnetal size. That is the single most daunting facet of the mechanic in the game, and the best argument for allowing the attacker to do non-base assaults if he's feeling lucky. Or desperate.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: FrankE

Where is it written that players can't defend a non-base hex?

The problem with landing anywhere is places like the cliffs of the great Australian Bight, which would be absolutely impossible to land 1 man at let alone an invasion, are easily accessible in game because a hex is just another hex in game.

Historically no coastal defenses were needed along that huge strip of cliff face, so no military units exist to defend it. You have to pull something from somewhere else if you want to try and defend it and you then leave that somewhere else location undefended so you can defend something you shouldn’t have to. Historical OOBs are reflections of historical realities and based on actual places that could have been invaded. Landing anywhere there is a hex in game is pure fantasy.

This is supposed to be a game based on WWII and should reflect historical realities, if the designers feel a certain hex should be able to support landings, they should make it a dot hex.

Jim

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely

There were no "port" objectives for D-day.  The allies knew that they could not capture an intact working port so they brought their own in the mulberries.  The overall goal; however, was the capture of a port.  Cherbourg would have been ideal but it took several months to get into operation and eventually Antwerp was captured and that still took several months to resume normal operation.  Until then the temporary Mulberries kept a lot of the invading armies supplied.  They also had an underwater pipeline to bring fuel across.

"Sword Beach
SWORD BEACH was the objective of 3rd (British) Infantry Division. They were to advance inland as far as Caen, and line up with British Airborne forces east of the Orne River/Caen Canal. The Orne River bridges had been seized in late at night on the 5th of June by a glider-borne reinforced company commanded by Maj. John Howard. As at the other beaches, British forces penetrated quite a ways inland after breaking the opposition at water's edge. Unfortunately, the objective of Caen was probably asking too much of a single infantry division, especially given the traffic jams and resistance encountered further inland. 1st Special Service (Commando) brigade commanded by Lord Lovat, linked up in the morning with Howard's force at Pegasus bridge on the British left. Fierce opposition from the 2lst Panzer and later the 12th SS Panzer division prevented the British from reaching Caen on the 6th. Indeed, Caen was not taken until late June."


http://www.army.mil/d-day/beaches.html

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: FrankE

Where is it written that players can't defend a non-base hex?

The problem with landing anywhere is places like the cliffs of the great Australian Bight, which would be absolutely impossible to land 1 man at let alone an invasion, are easily accessible in game because a hex is just another hex in game.

Historically no coastal defenses were needed along that huge strip of cliff face, so no military units exist to defend it. You have to pull something from somewhere else if you want to try and defend it and you then leave that somewhere else location undefended so you can defend something you shouldn’t have to. Historical OOBs are reflections of historical realities and based on actual places that could have been invaded. Landing anywhere there is a hex in game is pure fantasy.

This is supposed to be a game based on WWII and should reflect historical realities, if the designers feel a certain hex should be able to support landings, they should make it a dot hex.

Jim

You defend it with ships, not troops. AE is as much or more a naval game as one of ground-pounding.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: herwin

My reaction is that you can build a base anywhere you can land a significant force. Hence, you should only land at potential base hexes. Of course, that means all potential base hexes should be dot hexes or better.

While it's an idea, as you know the game does not have dot bases everywhere you could in reality build a base. I wonder if the game engine could scale to having so many dot bases.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You defend it with ships, not troops. AE is as much or more a naval game as one of ground-pounding.

That's just absurd. I shouldn't have to worry about Japan landing along a 1000km+ long sheer cliff face period. This isn't command and conquer, it's supposed to be a game about history.

Jim

[FrankE]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: FrankE

Where is it written that players can't defend a non-base hex?

The problem with landing anywhere is places like the cliffs of the great Australian Bight, which would be absolutely impossible to land 1 man at let alone an invasion, are easily accessible in game because a hex is just another hex in game.

Historically no coastal defenses were needed along that huge strip of cliff face, so no military units exist to defend it.

Isn't the 'fix' for that already possible by modifying the map? If you have a stretch of coastline where you really want to prevent naval invasions, just block movement into those hexes from other water hexes.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
This is supposed to be a game based on WWII and should reflect historical realities, if the designers feel a certain hex should be able to support landings, they should make it a dot hex.

Jim

If we went that route, I think almost every hex in the game would end up being a dot hex. If nothing else, you won't find many areas the size of a map hex that couldn't have supported at least a level 1 airfield. I'm ok with some abstraction in that regard.

[witpqs]

Agreed, Frank. What Jim is really saying is that the map is wrong for not having prohibited ships from crossing that hex side.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You defend it with ships, not troops. AE is as much or more a naval game as one of ground-pounding.

That's just absurd. I shouldn't have to worry about Japan landing along a 1000km+ long sheer cliff face period. This isn't command and conquer, it's supposed to be a game about history.

Jim

If that portion of Oz is 1000km long and all cliffs, then you have a problem with the map, not the game engine. The map has impassable mountains as a hex terrain option.

If it's not all cliffs (I don't know), then yes, you could invade there, and yes, you need to be prepared to stop the invasion on the sea side. Or wait patiently for him to come ashore, recover disruption, and then march many hexes to your base, where he'll STILL have to assault you and your fort level, same as if he'd come into the base hex. All he's done is avoid your CD. And the Oz CD isn't very good. But he ought to have that option, if he's willing to try it with low supply access.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

What was Omaha beach then? An unopposed landing up the coast?

Omaha was the hardest of the five. Gold, Juno, and Sword were cakewalks compared to trying a direct assault on a developed harbor.

Even Omaha had advantages over a harbor--width, ability of close-gunfire support to get within 2000 yards of the beach and stay mobile, and open maneuvering room just behind the beach. Not to mention the ability to be pounded by air just beofre the invasion without blowing up valuable assets you wanted to use yourself, later.

But Omaha also had the advantage not found in the game of being a logistics pipe of monumnetal size. That is the single most daunting facet of the mechanic in the game, and the best argument for allowing the attacker to do non-base assaults if he's feeling lucky. Or desperate.

I don't think anyone is saying that the game should simulate amphib landings as direct assaults on the developed harbor in the hex. The variablity in casualties makes me think that you can 'land' in the same hex at the harbor or an un/underdefended beach. For that reason I wouldn't allow non-base invasions.

Don't know what you mean by 'logistics pipe'. If you mean that the allies were able to unload a large amount of material, eq and supply at Omaha, I'd agree that the game doesn't allow for this. I'd also say that the logistics pipe only occurred because of the Mulberry, proximity to England (being 20-30m from an industrialized nation w/ excellent harbors doesn't hurt) and vehicles designed to unload directly on the beach. 2 out of 3 of those factors are unavailable to the allies in the game and 3 out of 3 are unavailable as Japan.

Wouldn't use Normandy for an example of an up the coast landing. All the beaches were w/i 50m of Caen. Game wise you can make a case that the landing occured in the Caen hex with it's accompanying CD and defenders. I have to admit, I'd like to see what the result of a Normandy Invasion in AE would be.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You defend it with ships, not troops. AE is as much or more a naval game as one of ground-pounding.

That's just absurd. I shouldn't have to worry about Japan landing along a 1000km+ long sheer cliff face period. This isn't command and conquer, it's supposed to be a game about history.

Jim

If that portion of Oz is 1000km long and all cliffs, then you have a problem with the map, not the game engine. The map has impassable mountains as a hex terrain option.

If it's not all cliffs (I don't know), then yes, you could invade there, and yes, you need to be prepared to stop the invasion on the sea side. Or wait patiently for him to come ashore, recover disruption, and then march many hexes to your base, where he'll STILL have to assault you and your fort level, same as if he'd come into the base hex. All he's done is avoid your CD. And the Oz CD isn't very good. But he ought to have that option, if he's willing to try it with low supply access.

Ah Bullwinkle, you know how much I admire your posts, particularly when you attempt to pull that rabbit out of the hat, but on this theme we part. You might recall my post of some months ago (in a discussion about CD capabilities on Hawaii) regarding cliffs, mangrove swamps, tides etc limiting invasion sites in real life but not being captured by the game engine. So I won't repeat myself here, however a few enlightening points about the Great Australian Bight might be useful.

Ever wondered why the AE game map has no dot bases (let alone a real base) between Esperance and Ceduna? That is because there is nothing there to support any permanent human establishment. Basically:

(a) no beaches, certainly nothing wide enough to support the amphibious TF unload rates of AE
(b) predominantly vertical cliffs which could be scaled by individuals reprising the role of mountain goats but no possibility of getting vehicles/artillery tubes etc up on to the plateau
(c) a distinct lack of drinkable water to support a battalion, let alone an AE invasion force from a 100 ship sized Amphibious TF (or 2 or 3 such TFs as employed by AE players). Would have to be a pretty tough choice for a commander to make, do I carry water or ammo (remembering just how heavy water is in comparison to carrying a 100 rounds of small arms ammo in addition to C rations all the time moving up to the plateau like a mountain goat) sufficient to see me through the AE engine 3-4 days minimum to walk from one road/trail less hex to the next. I hope we all remember what brought about the disaster of the battle of Hattin in 1187 AD, and they only had to cross 10 miles of waterless terrain
(d) its a pretty strong and cold swell coming up from Antarctica which intersects the coast along the Great Australian Bight

If the conditions were suitable, you would find the odd fishing village to take advantage of the economic bounty of tuna fishing etc. Instead its not until you reach Spencer Gulf (in AE map terms, Whyalla) that you find any meaningful human activity at Port Lincoln. In real life there are small outposts between Ceduna and Port Lincoln, but on the Great Australian Bight between Ceduna and Esperance, you may as well have a gigantic national park (which are found in reality).

Of course if really pressed[:D], I'll detail why in general I concur with Jim D Burns. In WITP classic, landing on a non base/dot hex was extremely gamey, IMHO, in AE it is almost but IMHO not yet quite acceptable to do so.

Oh, and just to add a very important point overlooked by the posts commenting on D-day. In the whole of northern France, in circumstances where the entire coastal infrastructure is held by the enemy, there are only 2, yes count them, suitable ports to sustain (remember we aren't talking about a Dieppe style raid) the projected Allied army - Cherbourg and Brest. To land within 46 statute miles of those ports (to put it into AE hex context) meant allowing the Germans to use the geography of the Cotentin and Brittany peninsulas to easily bottle up (at minimal cost to the Germans in terms of not having to pull reserves away from Germany or the Eastern Front) the Allies and force a frontal attack (think of the fighting in the hedges, now project that fighting occurring even further back before you hit open territory). The next really good port is Antwerp (if you overlook the difficulty of the Scheldt) - those ports in Haute Normandie, Picardie and Belgium are small and no major effort was made to subsequently capture them, remember that Patton relied upon Brest to supply him and the point of the Ardennes in December 1944 was to capture Antwerp.

Alfred

[witpqs]

Alfred,

If that were really the reason why there are no bases there in AE, I presume there would be many dot bases in other places in AE where there are none. What I think you are doing is affirming the observation made by someone else that those hex side where you says landings could not take place should actually be made impassible to ships. The map is not perfect. There is no way that all viable places for bases have been given dots. No way.

[Alfred]

There are two issues here which are being coflated.

One is the map. I totally agree that the red hexside should be much more utilised and if it were, I would be much more comfortable with non base/hex landings although even then I would have some reservations (due to the second issue). But how certain are we that red hexsides really work. Last week I posted in the Bug Forum that my MLs had crossed the Palk Strait, which according to page 40 of the manual is impossible. This outcome was acceptable because page 38 introduces a separate rule for ships of less than 100 tons (clearly the WITP classic notes had been imported without modification) - so just how big are those barges?

The second issue is AE game design which I honestly do not believe supports the arguments adduced for such landings. I don't have the time now to go into detail, but thanks for extending the invitation to come back later with my argument (I feel a bit like Jim Carrey in The Mask when he uttered "Somebody stop me!")[:D] Granted, as I posted, the changes made in AE almost make it acceptable, but ultimately I am not convinced. To be continued as a Vincent Price like laugh is heard disappearing down the dungeon corridor

Alfred

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

I don't think anyone is saying that the game should simulate amphib landings as direct assaults on the developed harbor in the hex. The variablity in casualties makes me think that you can 'land' in the same hex at the harbor or an un/underdefended beach. For that reason I wouldn't allow non-base invasions.

Wouldn't use Normandy for an example of an up the coast landing. All the beaches were w/i 50m of Caen. Game wise you can make a case that the landing occured in the Caen hex with it's accompanying CD and defenders. I have to admit, I'd like to see what the result of a Normandy Invasion in AE would be.

The game has to abstract to fit the hex size. I've never assaulted a base hex with CD where the CD did not fire, which makes it game-operational that you ARE assaulting the harbor. If there's variance built into the casualties to simulate being in the hex, but 20-miles from the actual harbor and the CD, I haven't noted it.

I did mean the Mulberries, but also the very short distance from England. PTO invasions often take place across hundreds or thousands of miles. But, even in China, I'm hard-pressed to come close to assembling a wad of troops even close to just what went ashore on D-Day itself. Supply needs are not the same. That, and things like panzers being able to, yes, react 40 miles on D-Day, but on pristine, paved roads rather than jungle, do make D-Day a poor comparison to AE's issues.

A Normandy invasion in AE's engine would be nonsensical. The scale is simply not workable.