A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room!

[sprior]

I've never played with this HR. Exactly how many non-base, non-dot hexes would anyone want to land in?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

And lets face it, NO army can defend a long coastline no matter how big or bad

That's what navies are for.

[pws1225]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

And lets face it, NO army can defend a long coastline no matter how big or bad

That's what navies are for.

Ha! Indeed!

[CV2]

The house rule is really only because paranoid people from WitP believed because there wasnt a landing report stating what the casualties were on landing at a non-base hex there werent any. Well, there ARE, it just wasnt reported. Frankly dont know if this has been changed in AE or not (the reporting part, not the casualties - I KNOW the casualties happen). If you are looking at a historical game, then non-base landings should certainly be allowed as it was done many many places and in fact the 2 landings for the invasion of Japan were to be on non-base hexes.

[Puhis]

Landing at base/dot hex without any preparation points is a disaster, even when there is no defenders. Unit can easily suffer 50 % "casualties" (as disabled squads/guns).

I haven't try it, but shouldn't it be the same with non base/dot hexes?

[CV2]

It is the same. It just isnt reported. Try it yourself and see.

[Puhis]

Actually I'd love to see my allied opponents landing at non base hexes. While his disorganised troops would try to to crawl through the jungle, I'd have time to prepare my defence and bring reinforcement...

[Canoerebel]

The HR is to put reign on the clever, clever players that might otherwise land tiny forces in non-base/non-dot hexes to (a) cut off paths of retreat and (b) sever supply lines [erstad pointed (a) out already]. You can do this with just a small force. Whereas, in real life, the local militia, occasional regular army garrison, or the guards assigned to escort the critical supply convoy would be sufficient to handle such an incursion, in the game this isn't modeled well. So we use the HR to prevent wild and wacky situations in which 100 undernourished invaders can interdict a critical supply line for days or weeks.

[Puhis]

I don't see anything wrong with a or b, unless we are talking about small unit fragments. I think it should be OK to use for example battalion size units to block supply lines or retreat paths.

[CV2]

There are numerous times in the war that small forces were used to do just that. In 1 instance a 4 man team from the SS Barb (sub) landed in Japan and blew up a rail line. Elements of the 51st division on the Bicol Peninsula (SE Luzon) were trapped and surrendered by a small Japanese force landing at night behind them where the peninsula is only 7 miles wide. Several company sized landings were made along the Bataan Peninsula as well (known as the "Battle of the Points"). Fragments of units took vast areas all over the Bismark sea.

[Canoerebel]

But in the game it's too easy and too effective. In the real war, a small force landed in the rear might briefly control a railroad lifeline. What would you do? You'd put a unit aboard trains, send the train to the front, debark your troops, and handle the poorly supplied, disorganized enemy expeditiously. In AE, though, trains don't stop between cities. So, in AE, you have to put your counter-insurgency force into strategic mode, move it to the closest station, then stand down from strategic mode, then march overland to the hex in question. In some places - particularly Oz - it could take days or even weeks to fix the problem. Meanwhile, your supply and retreat paths are disrupted.

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

I don't see anything wrong with a or b, unless we are talking about small unit fragments. I think it should be OK to use for example battalion size units to block supply lines or retreat paths.

Puhis,

I agree. With the exception of a few company sized units and elite commando units that each side gets in their OB, I could go for a HR that limits invasions to battalion sized units. While it is true, and has been pointed out, that smaller unit sizes were indeed involved in many amphibious operation in the war -- this is a game, and the mechanics of the game could become distorted for ill if exploited by numerous small unit fragment invasions.

I would say, generally, you can land anything you want in any manner you want on a single hex island; but using small unit fragments to interfere with supply on larger land masses is too gamey for my tastes.

Regards,
Feltan

[CV2]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

But in the game it's too easy and too effective. In the real war, a small force landed in the rear might briefly control a railroad lifeline. What would you do? You'd put a unit aboard trains, send the train to the front, debark your troops, and handle the poorly supplied, disorganized enemy expeditiously. In AE, though, trains don't stop between cities. So, in AE, you have to put your counter-insurgency force into strategic mode, move it to the closest station, then stand down from strategic mode, then march overland to the hex in question. In some places - particularly Oz - it could take days or even weeks to fix the problem. Meanwhile, your supply and retreat paths are disrupted.

You want to complain about something that is too easy and too effective in the game that actually means something what about 4E bombers flying max range every night decimating airfield after airfield? Every single night. Real world a bomber crew could count on 1 mission every 3 days. I think pilot and airplane fatigue needs to be overhauled. There are soooo few instances where landing a fragment behind the lines is going to do anything. Too few to even worry about. On the WitP map there were only 15 hexes where it mattered. Because of the smaller scale I suspect there are less than that in AE.

[Canoerebel]

Well, this thread isn't addressing 4EB (or the many other oddities in the game). The thread addresses invasions of non-base/non-dot hexes. The objection to your comment/question as irrelevant is sustained. [:)]

Back to the question - it's a house rule that players are free to accept or reject. Many players use it and seem to either like it or to have a neutral attitude for it. We're just pointing out the the rule has a rationale basis behind it.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: CV2

You want to complain about something that is too easy and too effective in the game that actually means something what about 4E bombers flying max range every night decimating airfield after airfield? Every single night. Real world a bomber crew could count on 1 mission every 3 days. I think pilot and airplane fatigue needs to be overhauled. There are soooo few instances where landing a fragment behind the lines is going to do anything. Too few to even worry about. On the WitP map there were only 15 hexes where it mattered. Because of the smaller scale I suspect there are less than that in AE.

Why is the complaint only about "4-ENGINED BOMBERS"? Why not about ANY AIRCRAFT flying missions every turn? Could it be that you only want the Allies (the ones who have 4-engined bombers) restricted..., while your Betty's and Nell's continue to fly uneffected? At least be fair in your complaints...

[witpqs]

The proposed 'must land only at bases' HR does not address the small/tiny unit thing. You simply have to have an opponent that ascribes to "Don't be gamey."

Moving a company to cut off the retreat (from a combat 'retreat' result) of a 100,000 strong stack is gamey, even if it's a whole unit moved overland, because 100,000 guys retreating IRL would move into the hex against a company anyway. The game engine just doesn't know any better.

Cutting a rail line with a company is fine, because they could (and did) do that and it doesn't matter how many guys on trains want to use that rail line in the next turn or ten turns. Those guys just have to get off the trains and defeat the company.

Para dropping a unit into combat in concert with either a ground attack or amphibious landing to get the defender's AS reduction is fine (although I have no idea if the game's formula is correct). But again it's a matter of proportion. Dropping a battalion on a stack of 50,000 to get the effect seems gamey (IMO), but if you dropped at least 2 or 3 regiments that makes sense.

So when it comes to the 'land only at bases' rule, I oppose it because a gamey opponent will still be gamey. Landing anywhere they can gives a player more flexibility. The penalties are serious, so their strategy better compensate or they will have a mini-disaster.

[CV2]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: CV2

You want to complain about something that is too easy and too effective in the game that actually means something what about 4E bombers flying max range every night decimating airfield after airfield? Every single night. Real world a bomber crew could count on 1 mission every 3 days. I think pilot and airplane fatigue needs to be overhauled. There are soooo few instances where landing a fragment behind the lines is going to do anything. Too few to even worry about. On the WitP map there were only 15 hexes where it mattered. Because of the smaller scale I suspect there are less than that in AE.

Why is the complaint only about "4-ENGINED BOMBERS"? Why not about ANY AIRCRAFT flying missions every turn? Could it be that you only want the Allies (the ones who have 4-engined bombers) restricted..., while your Betty's and Nell's continue to fly uneffected? At least be fair in your complaints...

Because I have never seen the same problem with 2 engine bombers. From either side, but --- you WILL note --- I said plane and pilot fatigue needs to be overhauled. I did NOT say that 4E bomber plane and pilot fatigue needs to be overhauled with no other changes to existing 1e and 2e aircraft. You should stop reading into things what you want them to say and start reading them for what it DOES say.

[CV2]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The proposed 'must land only at bases' HR does not address the small/tiny unit thing. You simply have to have an opponent that ascribes to "Don't be gamey."

Moving a company to cut off the retreat (from a combat 'retreat' result) of a 100,000 strong stack is gamey, even if it's a whole unit moved overland, because 100,000 guys retreating IRL would move into the hex against a company anyway. The game engine just doesn't know any better.

Cutting a rail line with a company is fine, because they could (and did) do that and it doesn't matter how many guys on trains want to use that rail line in the next turn or ten turns. Those guys just have to get off the trains and defeat the company.

Para dropping a unit into combat in concert with either a ground attack or amphibious landing to get the defender's AS reduction is fine (although I have no idea if the game's formula is correct). But again it's a matter of proportion. Dropping a battalion on a stack of 50,000 to get the effect seems gamey (IMO), but if you dropped at least 2 or 3 regiments that makes sense.

So when it comes to the 'land only at bases' rule, I oppose it because a gamey opponent will still be gamey. Landing anywhere they can gives a player more flexibility. The penalties are serious, so their strategy better compensate or they will have a mini-disaster.

With the sizes of the hexes (meaning there are more hexes on the map and thus far fewer "choke points"), and the fact that you have to control hex sides now rather than to have been the last to pass through a hex, the way I see it, if a player allows himself to be outmaneuvered to where 1 fragment can cut him off, its the players fault for allowing it to happen.

[pws1225]

"With the exception of a few company sized units and elite commando units that each side gets in their OB, I could go for a HR that limits invasions to battalion sized units." - from Felton's post #32
 
I think this sounds like a reasonable way to handle the issue.  I'll propose it to my opponent and see what he thinks.  Many thanks to all you "Old Pros" for helping out a couple of newbies in their first campaign game.
 
Paul  

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: CV2

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: CV2

You want to complain about something that is too easy and too effective in the game that actually means something what about 4E bombers flying max range every night decimating airfield after airfield? Every single night. Real world a bomber crew could count on 1 mission every 3 days. I think pilot and airplane fatigue needs to be overhauled. There are soooo few instances where landing a fragment behind the lines is going to do anything. Too few to even worry about. On the WitP map there were only 15 hexes where it mattered. Because of the smaller scale I suspect there are less than that in AE.

Why is the complaint only about "4-ENGINED BOMBERS"? Why not about ANY AIRCRAFT flying missions every turn? Could it be that you only want the Allies (the ones who have 4-engined bombers) restricted..., while your Betty's and Nell's continue to fly uneffected? At least be fair in your complaints...

Because I have never seen the same problem with 2 engine bombers. From either side, but --- you WILL note --- I said plane and pilot fatigue needs to be overhauled. I did NOT say that 4E bomber plane and pilot fatigue needs to be overhauled with no other changes to existing 1e and 2e aircraft. You should stop reading into things what you want them to say and start reading them for what it DOES say.

I did read what you wrote...

what about 4E bombers flying max range every night decimating airfield after airfield?