A condemnation on Long range amphibious transports

[Moonchild]

Perhaps, long-range amphibious transports shouldn’t be allowed to unload on a beach unless that beach is within X number of hexes from a friendly controlled port. This number, X could be modified by nationality and upwards with increased long-range tech.

I agree, it would be a great improvement.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

It only takes a cruise ship, not a fast navy destroyer, only five days to sail from the West Coast to Hawaii. In the game, one has to naval cruise any ship to get to Hawaii in just one turn. Therefore, I don’t have an issue with the normal or cruising speed of long-range amphibious transports.

I feel that what isn’t fully modeled is naval supply of amphibiously delivered land units. These ground units aren’t living off the land for their munitions and fuel. Those essential supplies are being shipped from their homeland.

The old board game, Third Reich, only allowed amphibious invasions within X number of hexes from the nearest controlled port. This worked well even for long-range invasions, like Torch, as Torch was within X number of hexes from Gibraltar.
Perhaps, long-range amphibious transports shouldn’t be allowed to unload on a beach unless that beach is within X number of hexes from a friendly controlled port. This number, X could be modified by nationality and upwards with increased long-range tech.

This is a interesting idea. It might make the Aleutians great again for this game.

[Ktonos]

It only takes a cruise ship, not a fast navy destroyer, only five days to sail from the West Coast to Hawaii. In the game, one has to naval cruise any ship to get to Hawaii in just one turn. Therefore, I don’t have an issue with the normal or cruising speed of long-range amphibious transports.

I feel that what isn’t fully modeled is naval supply of amphibiously delivered land units. These ground units aren’t living off the land for their munitions and fuel. Those essential supplies are being shipped from their homeland.

The old board game, Third Reich, only allowed amphibious invasions within X number of hexes from the nearest controlled port. This worked well even for long-range invasions, like Torch, as Torch was within X number of hexes from Gibraltar.
Perhaps, long-range amphibious transports shouldn’t be allowed to unload on a beach unless that beach is within X number of hexes from a friendly controlled port. This number, X could be modified by nationality and upwards with increased long-range tech.

Yes, most WW2 board games allow invasions on or next to a port. But I think the game does this better. Yes you can invade on a plain coast, but this would be suicidal in the long term, if you dont eventually capture a port. Even with marines.

Also, the supply model here, doesn;t model the actual transfer of supplies from mainland to overseas possessions. So something like this would require a complete remodel of how supply works, and I don't think it would be a viable change. It would need a total rework of game mechanics that, in the end, work fine and are very balanced as is.

In my opinion, any change, if any, should be minor. Someone posted changes should be made with "babysteps" in order for any improvement to not mess with already very much working mechanics. He has my vote.

Yes, a troop transport would make it from East coast to England/France within 12-15 days, so in game cruise speed is normal. Speed isn't the problem here. The issue is that these troop transports would need to be in armed convoys if the ocean they are crossing is contested.

[Mithrilotter]

I would not remotely suggest that the game engine be extensively revised to model the over the water supply of land units. Hubert and Bill have already put in an astounding amount of work updating this wonderful 4 ½ year old game. As I see it, it is a happy coincidence that the mere existence of a friendly port also confirms the existence of an established sea supply line. I am simply suggesting that a game engine check be added to see if an amphibious unit can be unloaded.

I would further suggest that all of the non-Soviet Western Allies, except for China, allow use of any of their controlled ports for the amphibious landing range calculation. If China wants to amphibiously invade, they should be limited to using Chinese controlled ports. Soviet units should only be able to use Soviet controlled ports for Soviet amphibious landing range calculation. German and Italian units should only be able to use German or Italian controlled ports. Japan should only be able to use Japanese controlled ports.

I would also suggest that the amphibious landing range calculations be based on the maximum amphibious one turn movement allowance permitted by the nation’s current amphibious tech level. For example, Germany starts with Level 0. Germany should be restricted to landing amphibious units from their allowed ports for a rather short range. Japan has an advanced amphibious tech level, which allows long-range amphibious transports which can naval cruise. Therefore, Japan should be allowed to land amphibious units anywhere within the long-range amphibious naval cruise distance of a Japanese controlled port. This should allow for any reasonable amphibious invasion that historically occurred, while preventing unrealistic gamey invasions. This also makes some islands, like the Aleutians, now strategically important.

[Tanaka]

I would not remotely suggest that the game engine be extensively revised to model the over the water supply of land units. Hubert and Bill have already put in an astounding amount of work updating this wonderful 4 ½ year old game. As I see it, it is a happy coincidence that the mere existence of a friendly port also confirms the existence of an established sea supply line. I am simply suggesting that a game engine check be added to see if an amphibious unit can be unloaded.

I would further suggest that all of the non-Soviet Western Allies, except for China, allow use of any of their controlled ports for the amphibious landing range calculation. If China wants to amphibiously invade, they should be limited to using Chinese controlled ports. Soviet units should only be able to use Soviet controlled ports for Soviet amphibious landing range calculation. German and Italian units should only be able to use German or Italian controlled ports. Japan should only be able to use Japanese controlled ports.

I would also suggest that the amphibious landing range calculations be based on the maximum amphibious one turn movement allowance permitted by the nation’s current amphibious tech level. For example, Germany starts with Level 0. Germany should be restricted to landing amphibious units from their allowed ports for a rather short range. Japan has an advanced amphibious tech level, which allows long-range amphibious transports which can naval cruise. Therefore, Japan should be allowed to land amphibious units anywhere within the long-range amphibious naval cruise distance of a Japanese controlled port. This should allow for any reasonable amphibious invasion that historically occurred, while preventing unrealistic gamey invasions. This also makes some islands, like the Aleutians, now strategically important.

I like this! Very nice!

[SittingDuck]

It's good to see the LRT issue brought up again.

I'm a little perplexed why a dev hasn't joined the conversation.

[Mwhit299]

Why not require level 3 or more in Amphibious to get cruise? Then you get a max of 2 or 3 cruises. That way you can't do a German invasion of South Africa or Brazil with the same transport.

[Duedman]

The old board game, Third Reich, only allowed amphibious invasions within X number of hexes from the nearest controlled port. This worked well even for long-range invasions, like Torch, as Torch was within X number of hexes from Gibraltar.
Perhaps, long-range amphibious transports shouldn’t be allowed to unload on a beach unless that beach is within X number of hexes from a friendly controlled port. This number, X could be modified by nationality and upwards with increased long-range tech.

While I was reading I also wanted to suggest something like this.
As proposed it would still allow one-tapping Italy.
Maybe the amphibs should not be allowed to travel (vs unload) too far from a Str 5 port.
That would make Gibraltar unreachable imho so Torch would need to be an event.

In general something like this would be great. This game already allows for great freedom. But these silly "no-warning-one-taps" like Japs in South Africa, Brits in Helsinki, Allies in Italy....meh....

[BillRunacre]

Are the Japanese still landing in South Africa since this was introduced:

If Japan declares war on South Africa then the USA will now swing 20-25% towards the Allies (kjgokc2007).

If so, what is the aim here, to knock it out straight away?