Amphibious Assault

[G Felzien]

Can the Germans do this in the Baltic? If so, how? I have followed the manual's instructions to the letter (and variations) but nothing.

[cookie monster]

Hover the mouse over the sea.

You will see you have no amphib points.

Therefore you cant amphib.

Strange that... The Axis can never amphib.

[G Felzien]

I do find that within the Axis lake (the Baltic) the are no amphibious assets. Most strange.

[jomni]

Because they never launched one historically unlike the Soviets. 

[Mynok]

The Soviets did an amphib in the Baltic?

[mmarquo]

IIRC the Soviets can only do amphibious assaults in the Black/Azoz sea zones.
 
Marquo

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


The Soviets did an amphib in the Baltic?

Sorry for my general comment.
Soviets did an amphib in the Black Sea though.

[Mike Parker]

Because they never launched one historically unlike the Soviets.

*cough* Norway *cough*

Now perhaps loosing the assets they did in that operation is considered enough to say they no longer had that ability or were unwilling to try it again, but there were considerable amphibious elements to the invasion of Norway.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


The Soviets did an amphib in the Baltic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonzund_Landing_Operation

[ool]

Get a atlas! Norway isn't in the Baltic.

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: ool

Get a atlas! Norway isn't in the Baltic.

The point is that not allowing the Germans the opportunity to conduct such an operation just because they didn't, while they clearly had the capability to do so, is a poor game design decision.

Just my opinion.

[Mike Parker]

Get a atlas! Norway isn't in the Baltic.

*Chuckles*

Well anybody that would suggest that the same assets that participated in the Norway operation could not have participated in Baltic operations would be in more need of an Atlas. Vessels sailed primarily from Wilhelmshaven and Kiel in this operation, and the ones departing from Kiel actually traversed the extreme western Baltic on the way to Oslo.

The fact that this operation was performed in both the Baltic and North Sea make it more difficult as it had legitimate interferance from the Royal Navy. Purely Baltic operations would in theory be easier, as they could be launched from Kiel or purely Baltic Ports and with Denmark and Norway Occupied, Sweden Neutral, and Finland allied they would find operational going much easier. Now I will say the Kriegsmarine rather took a bloody nose in the Norway Invasion and perhaps they lost the ability and/or will to conduct Amphibius. I wonder however if the loss of Naval assets caused Hitler to take a dim view of Amphibious ops just as the Crete operation pretty much did the same to paratroop operations. So perhaps a lack of amphibious options in WITE represents the belief that Hitler would not have authorized any sort of major amphib ops in the Baltic, as I am fairly certain that the capability existed.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

ORIGINAL: ool

Get a atlas! Norway isn't in the Baltic.

The point is that not allowing the Germans the opportunity to conduct such an operation just because they didn't, while they clearly had the capability to do so, is a poor game design decision.

Just my opinion.

I think Mike Parker is right when assumes that after Norway the Germans did not want more amphibious adventures, and therefore they did not prepare any for Barbarossa. And, later in the war, it seems difficult to imagine in what circumstances they could consider it necessary.

In game terms, at the beginning of the 1941 GC you do not have the capability because the Germans did not have it at that moment. And afterwards, from the game perspective I do not see when it could be useful.

As a "what-if" option, it could be workable, although the ships necessary to escort the transports in the Baltic should in that case not be available in Norway to harass Allied convoys (increased Lend Lease?)

[color]

What's all this talk about invading Norway?!?!? [:-]

I'll be waiting for you

[Adnan Meshuggi]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

ORIGINAL: ool

Get a atlas! Norway isn't in the Baltic.

The point is that not allowing the Germans the opportunity to conduct such an operation just because they didn't, while they clearly had the capability to do so, is a poor game design decision.

Just my opinion.

the germans did amph. operations... they landed on dago and ösel... but true, they did not do such operations.
In 1941 and even more in 42 they could have done it.... but they had no need for doing so.
the baltic was a german lake, the russian fleed destroyed or captured by minefields and the frontline was near leningrad, so nobody need such risky operation
in 43 and even more in 44 the germans had no reserves left to do it. also to be honest, what purpose had a landing in Kronstadt, 500km behind the russian frontline, the own troops shattered and in full retreat?

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

ORIGINAL: ool

Get a atlas! Norway isn't in the Baltic.

The point is that not allowing the Germans the opportunity to conduct such an operation just because they didn't, while they clearly had the capability to do so, is a poor game design decision.

Just my opinion.

I think Mike Parker is right when assumes that after Norway the Germans did not want more amphibious adventures, and therefore they did not prepare any for Barbarossa. And, later in the war, it seems difficult to imagine in what circumstances they could consider it necessary.

In game terms, at the beginning of the 1941 GC you do not have the capability because the Germans did not have it at that moment. And afterwards, from the game perspective I do not see when it could be useful.

As a "what-if" option, it could be workable, although the ships necessary to escort the transports in the Baltic should in that case not be available in Norway to harass Allied convoys (increased Lend Lease?)

I personally think a game like this should be about capabilities rather than historical actions.
So if the axis had the capability to launch a baltic invasion (which they did), then that should be modelled in game. If we think that there would be a political price to pay for that after the drubbing the Kriegsmarine took in norway, then you could model in a significant Admin Point cost for amphibious operations.

[LiquidSky]

Why would the Germans plan an amphibious invasion in the Baltic when the war will be over in a couple weeks? By the time they figured out that 'hey, this thing might be a little bit longer then we thought', they were up to Leningrad, with out any more coast to invade.

[marty_01]

The Germans did conduct some rather historically obscure amphibious operations to capture those large islands north of Riga. I don’t recall the names of the islands, but the towns of Kuressaare and Muhu are located on them. This was done in 1941 during the Germans push toward Tallinn and Leningrad.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan



The point is that not allowing the Germans the opportunity to conduct such an operation just because they didn't, while they clearly had the capability to do so, is a poor game design decision.

Just my opinion.

I think Mike Parker is right when assumes that after Norway the Germans did not want more amphibious adventures, and therefore they did not prepare any for Barbarossa. And, later in the war, it seems difficult to imagine in what circumstances they could consider it necessary.

In game terms, at the beginning of the 1941 GC you do not have the capability because the Germans did not have it at that moment. And afterwards, from the game perspective I do not see when it could be useful.

As a "what-if" option, it could be workable, although the ships necessary to escort the transports in the Baltic should in that case not be available in Norway to harass Allied convoys (increased Lend Lease?)

I personally think a game like this should be about capabilities rather than historical actions.
So if the axis had the capability to launch a baltic invasion (which they did), then that should be modelled in game. If we think that there would be a political price to pay for that after the drubbing the Kriegsmarine took in norway, then you could model in a significant Admin Point cost for amphibious operations.

this is part of the bigger problem.
Some people think, that one side should only reach historical results if they play perfect, every other result should be worse.
And in such a world nonhistorical event that favour for example the germans are a 100%-no-go.

i do belive that no larger invasion in the baltic could happen (axis side), because they thought "we win in 6 weeks".
But - i belive that a minor invasion was possible (and useful in the game if the game create such a possibility)

Sadly the amphib model is very abstract, so if you can invade with 6 german divisions, something is broken.
If we can´t change this model, we should ignore it. on the other hand, operations in the baltic by the russians are utterly nonsens in large scale operations - the game reflect this.

Invasions in the black sea should be limited in short range offensive action and "normal" defense action (supply)
an evacuation of sewastopol should only be possible if no axis troops are in the near hexes.

Oh - a last word: If you want some "impossible things should be forbidden" you need to tweak witp, cause the pearl-attack was also such event.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

the island(s) are Dagö and Ösel...