Invasion related ideas

[MorningDew]

I am reading Churchill's series on WWII and specifically in the section about the preparation for Sealion and it has given me a few invasion related ideas I thought I would throw out. Just for the record, the issues with invasions in Warplan have been GREATLY IMPROVED from release, but I personally believe it is too easy to invade early in the game and also too easy to move from port to port avoiding naval interdiction. Others may disagree.

Ideas:

1. Much like air units can be put into a mode where they intercept, it would be great if there was a mode (maybe a third toggle for the garrison mode button) which allows a land unit to be put on "intercept" against an invasion. If they can get adjacent to the invasion hex using 50% of their operation point, they would move adjacent to the invasion hex. The British knew they could not defend all the landing points, but they did believe they could have 20k+ troops at any point within 24 hours. Right now in Warplan the land unit reaction to invasion is often too late.

2. Tie the number of landing ships allowed to be built to a naval tech. This would limit early invasion sizes and require tech investment to invade on a large scale later in the game.

3. Provide visibility into the opponents total number of landing ships built and being built. The British had good intelligence of landing ships at ports.

4. If a naval unit is within 2 hexes of a embarking port, perform an interception - this provides some ability to "blockade". Perhaps there is even a third toggle on the naval unit between fleet->patrol->blockade and only units that have "blockade" would attempt to intercept at the port of embarkation and only if within 1-2 hexes. But I have seen too many situations where land units are in a port with enemy naval units all around and they simply sail off to another port with no actions by the enemy naval units.

Just some thoughts. I feel like Warplan is SO CLOSE, but this ability to so easily move on water and also invade is its big remaining challenge. With Pacific coming up, these might also provide a big boost to the naval aspects.

[AlvaroSousa]

#1 you can do that already. You set to fleet and sit within 5 hexes of the area, It will intercept up to 2x during your turn. The enemy needs twice as many fleets to bait yours out + the invasion force.

#2 This is intuitively balanced in the game. The UK is starving for production early. Will they spend on landing ships vs the strongest military in the world to do what against it? Will the Germans invest a ton of production in a lot of landing ships to invade the UK? Also makes it fun to do Sealion. Right now I believe Sealion is balanced. If you are the UK you should ALWAYS fear Sea Lion until the Germans are at war with the USSR.

#3 Hindsight takes care of this. If you do this then as the Axis I will always make 120 landing ships available to keep you honest.

#4 Blockade is something I was thinking about. You need to control the seas for an invasion.

[MorningDew]

Thank you for even reviewing these:

-------

#1 was land units - not naval units.

#2 not just about Sealion. I watch Italy and Germany go invasion crazy in the Med in some of my games. But just an idea.

#3 I don't understand what you mean. How does hindsight help provide visibility into whether someone is preparing for invasion?

[kennonlightfoot]

It's a little to easy to "game" the fleets. Shouldn't be able to make them use up intercepts on garbage fleets.

Also, should be able to "attack" and destroy "landing ships" using bombing of ports. Sealion didn't have a chance because it need air superiority and naval superiority to cross the channel. But this idea would probably be to difficult to make work in all situations.

[baloo7777]

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

It's a little to easy to "game" the fleets. Shouldn't be able to make them use up intercepts on garbage fleets.

Also, should be able to "attack" and destroy "landing ships" using bombing of ports. Sealion didn't have a chance because it need air superiority and naval superiority to cross the channel. But this idea would probably be to difficult to make work in all situations.

I wish your idea of not having to use up interceptions on junk fleets was doable, but I don't see it happening in pbem as would require a pause in the turn so the other side can choose to intercept or not. The same happens with ground air intercepts of invasions, using a single CA group to draw any air units set to intercept naval before invading with a different fleet.

[MorningDew]

ORIGINAL: baloo7777

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

It's a little to easy to "game" the fleets. Shouldn't be able to make them use up intercepts on garbage fleets.

Also, should be able to "attack" and destroy "landing ships" using bombing of ports. Sealion didn't have a chance because it need air superiority and naval superiority to cross the channel. But this idea would probably be to difficult to make work in all situations.

I wish your idea of not having to use up interceptions on junk fleets was doable, but I don't see it happening in pbem as would require a pause in the turn so the other side can choose to intercept or not. The same happens with ground air intercepts of invasions, using a single CA group to draw any air units set to intercept naval before invading with a different fleet.

I think it is the price of having a highly playable PBEM system. I am sure there are some methods to improve it, but in the end, you have to rely on the AI. It does make naval and air superiority important to "soak off" the interceptors and still have fleets for supply and air support.

[AlvaroSousa]

This isn't a live game where you can alternate choices and pass turns. You would rather watch paint dry in that case. The A.I. has to handle some aspects. But the ratio is 2:1 in favor of the defenders.

So say you want to invade. Your opponent has an unknown fleet size in the area + 1 bomber.

So take the Italians invading the Middle East. Already you are out numbered in naval. What is the 1st unit you send out to bait that patrol? A cruiser and patrol group? I randomize my patrols. Sometimes it's 1 group, sometimes it's 5 groups. So as the Italians you sacrifice 1-2 groups to get past the 1st interception. Now you know the size. What do you do for the 2nd? Who you you sacrifice? Do you send in lone transports?

Look at the resources you are spending just to make a bunch of tiny landings. If you want to sac 50% of your fleet to make some annoying rear landings be my guest. Now your fleet is sunk and you might do some damage but eventually I will contain you. You made my job easier in 1943.

I always have a bomber and a fleet patrolling the Eastern Mediterranean.

If I put out the Italian fleet I make sure it has air cover. In my current game I did an invasion of Greece. But before I put the fleet out I had 3 bomber groups protecting it and 3 sub groups on fleet mode. The UK fleet took a beating then retreated.

As the UK and USA I build extra patrol groups to ensure I have fleet superiority late in the game. I want no screw ups. I maximize my shipyards.

The one aspect some players fail to see is resource use and time in these games. If you invade France in 1944 and this single invasion fails it is your fault not the game. You should have multiple invasions available in case the first one fails. You need to have lots of backup.

There is a learning curve to the game but it isn't a micromanage build in order curve. It is an abstract thinking and resource management vs time curve.

You don't need a large patrol to deter an Italian fleet from invading in many places. 1 bomber + 1 small fleet requires the Italians to set up 5 fleets to overcome it. So where is the disadvantage in patrolling you ask? You need to protect a lot of places not knowing where they might strike.

I still set out patrols near England. I usually set up 2 in the Middle East. I set one in Iraq just in case the Axis want to do an end around. Oil is not an issue for the Allies.

If you want give me pictures and concrete examples of situations which seem unfair.