Ports and Invasion too easy

[battlevonwar]

As brought up when first starting the game I noticed that there are so many ports in the game and a Naval Invasion is just so easy. Just take 1 port and you can unload HQ/as many units that can stack into that location. It is a bit insane. . . Meanwhile you can not rail anything in to oppose vs what say 1/2/3 adjacent ports can provide. Even just 1 port provides more than the entire rail network of a nation can usually get into position to answer this. A Naval Interdiction, tried that in a game, 1 Air Interdiction sank the entire Kriegsmarine full HP in 1 shot without losing a plane.

We need to re-examine this feature and where it can be done. On what level. There must be a counter tactic to such a tactic. Range is just insane as well. You literally have no counter play to this at the moment when the game is heated and close. When every last unit counts.

[AlvaroSousa]

What I can do is simply only allow disembark at a supplied port to solve that problem.

This forced a greater expenditure on landing craft if they want units ashore. I'll wait to hear from others if this is the main concern of Sea Lion.

[gwgardner]

I oppose changes like this without lots of testing. Make it a long-term part of beta testing if you wanted to try such things.

For the official release, players should come up with tactics to keep the enemy from easy amphibious assaults. Naval air interdiction, patrolling subs, patrolling surface ships, sufficient garrisons ....

[Michael T]

Invasions are too easy.

Increase the cost of Amphibious Transports. And make it cost 2 Amphib's to transport Armour.

And there are just too many beaches. Plus there is no way to defend them. The attacker just lands for free on the beach. No fighting at all. Then just attacks inland. If a unit has just landed on a beach it should be halved in attack value for that turn.

Also letting Para's have 1/2 OP on the turn they land was a mistake.

Some beaches should be limited in the capacity that can invade.

A whole Panzer Corp landing at Malta is just silly.

[battlevonwar]

I would love for you all to hear from Cohen_Sith my opponent over the past 2 Games.

Sea Lion is one concern but his invasions of Germany Directly/Denmark/Finland would interest all here and had we done an AAR would REALLY interest everyone here... as far as game balance is concerned whoa...

3 tanks arrive in East Prussia in 1942, Finland Surrenders to the USA, etc... Of course you would say garrison the ports that allow this. Though these type of invasions can be done anywhere on the map. You cannot cover all the ports that are on the 'map'... There are a lot of them.

I think that Alvaro's alteration should be considered by the community and if instituted at least 'tested out'...

As many are rookies today, the minute you start to get great at this game you will find out just how fast 15 units can just appear say in the Heart of Germany. Or in France fully supplied and ready to roll. You will ask yourself is this good for the game?

UK is a different issue..

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

What I can do is simply only allow disembark at a supplied port to solve that problem.

This forced a greater expenditure on landing craft if they want units ashore. I'll wait to hear from others if this is the main concern of Sea Lion.

[Hoyt Burrass]

I kind of agree here, in March or April 1941 I was able to take out Vichy North Africa with England by invading multiple spots from both Gibraltar and Egypt...I think I conducted 5 invasions all told. Then in late August I hit 3 beaches in Northern Italy and 2 in Sicily...Admittedly the Axis Garrison was weak...but it just seemed a bit free wheeling to me.

I would like to hear others though.

[AlbertN]

Ports should not allow disembarking the turn they're seized - AND - they should be limited to the amount per turn of HPs disembarked by their capacity, subtracted to supplies unloaded.
(ie. A port with 6 capacity can supply 120 HPs. BUT if in one turn you unload a 20 HP unit, that eats for -that- turn 20 supply capacity).

A port has so much capacity, either you unload troops or you unload supplies (or a mix of them).
Armour taking 2* Amphibious units to be transported also seems good.

At this point though Axis may need some more shipyards at start or then it is 100% sure they won't be able to Sealion in time, ever.
Sealion bonus for USA needs to be reduced though, and Allies are quite on steroids already in '42 in mundane games that follow a historical path.
Invading troops should have 4 supply levels though (ie - they land with adequate supply to operate well for the next turn too) as it seems fleets do not supply inland hexes but only beaches.

But I feel an amount of other changes are needed. The experience treshold for instance as currently is way too hard to level up troops in experience above their normal rate.
Allies should not be able to truly invade anywhere by the end of '41 or '42 - yet production wise they can!!

USA troops should not be able to depart USA until USA can actually activate (They can be sailed off alraedy in early November or late October as if they have a crystal ball to know they'll get to war).

Invasion / Naval ranges should be changed - and get tied to technologies. Presently ships just zap across the globe and a 24 hex range for invasion is way too much. It should start pretty slim, and with technology goes up.

Technology reworks is needed - and Germany imo needs more technology teams. -- But right now some techs are entirely redundant, and in general it's just better to focus on the 'relevant' techs and try to max them out. Including a '39 modifier already (ie, Interceptor +1 Air to Air. Escort Fighter +2 range - and I'd give them increment of +2 per tech tier, Fighter Bomber +1 tactical but I'd rework that one entirely).

Etc, etc, etc.

Also I feel there can be the risk of repetitivedness of the game once the 'pattern' is ascertained or the best road to follow.

[James Taylor]

IRL amphibious landings were a very difficult maneuver to carry out successfully. As I recommended in SC only certain highly trained units should be allowed this ability and never larger than division size.

In WP we have marines. These represent the units needed to invade a beach, capturing a port in which there can be the follow up corps and army formations to land.

In conjunction with airborne operations, supported by naval and air forces, this is the type of operation that can succeed at acquiring a beach head in enemy territory. This is how it works and takes planning and coordination.

[AlbertN]

At the moment no one produce marines because they're a -division- sized unit.
Yes they've 1 extra point in firearms, good. BUT if there is a corp defending a port ... unless that corp is truly mauled beforehand the marines won't go far.

There can be many solutions to the problem - but then they all require testing. Like for airborne requiring 100% efficiency, a unit requiring 100% efficiency to invade could work. BUT then again - that's just about the Allies.
Drastic changes will simply disable the Axis to do a SeaLion as they've not the economy nor the time to adequately prepare.

And then as it was pointed out by many, Alvaro included, if the UK player knows the Germans cannot pull a Sealion out ... there is no game. They'll just go ham elsewhere (Which anyhow atm they can because hey, Sealion, dang USA kicks in at early '41 and by '42 you got UK back).

[battlevonwar]

Have to agree with Cohen here, the threat of Sea Lion has to remain. History has to take a backseat to playability. If there is no threat there the UK will do gamey stuff like pack Egypt and overrun Africa then hop onto Italy very early. Or other such maneuvers.

This is balanced if it happens at the right time but too early it will end games prematurely...

[PanzerMike]

Some very good point raised here and some possible solutions. I agree that there should be a threat of invasion for the UK; dad's army was there for a reason hehehe. Even if historically a German invasion was hardly possible, the game benefits from a possible sea lion.

If only to prevent the UK from doing gamey stuff, knowing England is safe anyway.

This needs a good think and lots of testing no matter what solution is chosen.

Making LCT, LVT, Amphibs, etc more expensive would be a simple solution. Even the USA with all their industrial capacity had trouble producing enough of them for two theaters of operation.

Another idea may be Port destruction. When a port is taken, it would be thoroughly destroyed, eg Cherbourg. So it takes time to repair the port facilities, meanwhile operating at far reduced capacity.

[James Taylor]

This is easy and the reality of the situation is only division size units can invade enemy territory, marines being the best at it(combat values). Any follow up units(corps & larger) can come in across the beaches that have been made friendly but they must use landing craft.

Once ashore the divisions can recombine to form larger, stronger formations.

Like PzM says the port facilities have been demolished. Once they have been resurrected then units come in as normal, no landing craft needed.

A feature like this parallels reality, the build up is slower and expensive, giving the enemy some chance at reacting but only for so long.

Check your history and then tell me I'm wrong. The mechanics are all here, readily available to test.

[Jim D Burns]

I really do think the best solution is to not allow landing at a beach unless the unloading troop has its full action/movement points available. That would require the unit remain at sea for one turn offshore, thus allowing defending naval forces to oppose the invasion.

Currently navies are worthless when it comes to defending against a naval landing. Let the British navy get involved and Sea Lion will be a risky venture as it should be.

That or allow navies to react 20 hexes or so (toggled setting so you can turn off reaction if you wish), so they can sit outside naval air ranges and not get sunk by massed air before they leave port when you try to station them near threatened beaches.

Jim

[tyronec]

Part of it may be about ports and landing craft but I agree with Jim that there is also a combat issue.

As things stand if you can get a unit ashore and trash the defender with enough CS then you can take the port.
You do not need air superiority, you just need parity in fighters (so you can soak off all the defending fighters) and a stack of CS.
The defenders navy and their bombers cannot engage if you are crossing the channel and can do it at night.

This runs in the face of history. For Sealion Axis needed to have Air superiority and the ability to suppress the RAF and the RN.
Likewise for Italy and Overlord the Allies had almost total air superiority.
Am not well read on the Pacific war but think the invaders usually had control in the air.

[Michael T]

Jim's idea has merit. The defender needs to have some intelligent (read non AI) reaction to an invasion.

And defending intercepting naval or bombing forces should just about have a guaranteed chance of successfully locating an invasion force.

As it stands I have seen my CV's fail time after time to locate enemy naval forces that are supporting an invasion hex or are providing shore bombardment. It's silly.

[MorningDew]

ORIGINAL: Hoyt Burrass

I kind of agree here, in March or April 1941 I was able to take out Vichy North Africa with England by invading multiple spots from both Gibraltar and Egypt...I think I conducted 5 invasions all told. Then in late August I hit 3 beaches in Northern Italy and 2 in Sicily...Admittedly the Axis Garrison was weak...but it just seemed a bit free wheeling to me.

I would like to hear others though.

I am on the other side of this one...

I have no idea what I could do significantly differently. Fleets in port don't intercept (personally - I think that might be something to consider).

Maybe I am doing something insanely wrong, but it feels ahistorical to me. The Italians do not seem able to produce enough units to both defend every invasion potential and participate in any kind of offensive actions. I hit the logistical limit early.

In terms of Vichy North Africa etc, Axis can't do anything (at least I don't think they can) to better garrison. The Allies made 5 different invasions in a single turn and managed to move inland.

Then, without all of North Africa falling, they have invaded both northern and southern Italy in a single turn. And it is August 1941. This picture is the invasion turn.

[MorningDew]

Here - disappointed the air in Sicily had no impact on the invasions...

[battlevonwar]

Transports are slow and cumbersome. Gaudalcanal had instances of troop being slaughtered in their transports.

I like these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnPo7V03nbY

ORIGINAL: tyronec

Part of it may be about ports and landing craft but I agree with Jim that there is also a combat issue.

As things stand if you can get a unit ashore and trash the defender with enough CS then you can take the port.
You do not need air superiority, you just need parity in fighters (so you can soak off all the defending fighters) and a stack of CS.
The defenders navy and their bombers cannot engage if you are crossing the channel and can do it at night.

This runs in the face of history. For Sealion Axis needed to have Air superiority and the ability to suppress the RAF and the RN.
Likewise for Italy and Overlord the Allies had almost total air superiority.
Am not well read on the Pacific war but think the invaders usually had control in the air.

[AlbertN]

By the numbers that airforce in Sicily is spent / low in efficiency and / or health points. So they do not intercept.

Is that a shot of August '41 against a human?

[MorningDew]

ORIGINAL: Cohen_slith

By the numbers that airforce in Sicily is spent / low in efficiency and / or health points. So they do not intercept.

Is that a shot of August '41 against a human?

Yes, August against a human. One was "17 of 20" health and 71% efficiency. However, might be low on oil.