Use of transports too easy?

[hickmanj]

I have wrestled with this question a lot this week.

Case in point:

As Germany (who should really only be able to transport a limited number of troops to be even remotely historical) I can transport massive amounts of troops on strategic move to Africa. Likewise, the WA can transport hideous amounts on strategic.

Tactical is balanced - it is the follow-up that ruins gameplay imho .... although I am posting b/c I'm sure there are probably play-tested realities I'm not thinking of?

It makes sense to me that Germany, for example, could make a push and send two or three infantry to Africa, and then maybe one or two more as reinforcements - instead I can dump 10 units in one season if I desire....

I realize the "turns" represent 3 months - so that brings in my second question: why was so much time reflected in 1 phase? is it to make the game accessible and open to the more casual gamer? I would love to see a patch that makes the phases 1 or 2 months at a time for a much longer, more intricate game strategically.

That would make strategic balance more, well, balanced. As it is it seems too easy to exploit transports.

Thoughts?

J

[PeterF]

I realize the "turns" represent 3 months - so that brings in my second question: why was so much time reflected in 1 phase? is it to make the game accessible and open to the more casual gamer? I would love to see a patch that makes the phases 1 or 2 months at a time for a much longer, more intricate game strategically.

On a one month scale you'd need larger maps, 2,3,4 times more areas, more detailed depiction of terrain, including major rivers. etc. IOW, you have Hearts of Iron sans the diplomacy. I think, given the grand strategic theme, time and scale are elegantly implemented in WaW.

Rumor has it that the engine sequel will recreate the Civil War using monthly turns and leader counters.

[dobeln]

WRT to the North African campaign, I think what is missing is not really a matter of transport capacity, but rather the lack of differential troop efficiency wrt to terrain.

Sticking 10 infantry corps in the small strip of traversable desert in Libya / Egypt shouldn't give linearly increasing benefits in the same manner as stacking corps in, say, the Ukraine. But that's not really a major issue as other considerations tend to turn NA into a sideshow in any case.

[paullus99]

If you want to send 10 Infantry to Africa - go right ahead. Eventually, the Western Allies (even the AI) will be able to kick you out of the Med & those troops will wither on the vine.

[IDrinkBeer]

It makes sense to me that Germany, for example, could make a push and send two or three infantry to Africa, and then maybe one or two more as reinforcements - instead I can dump 10 units in one season if I desire....

That makes 10 less infantry to support your SU campaign. They will be sorely missed... [;)]

[hickmanj]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

If you want to send 10 Infantry to Africa - go right ahead. Eventually, the Western Allies (even the AI) will be able to kick you out of the Med & those troops will wither on the vine.

Actually I didn't describe my strategy - I was more concerned with the idea that Germany could ship such massive amounts.

I've actually played 5-6 games so far as Germany on Advanced Supply where I transport a sizable force - smash through Cairo and take the Middle East and then, when war with SU is declared, the Caucasus right away. This makes the AI able to attack my Med. Fleet only from the west (if I don't also take Gibraltar - which I haven't done as often since Spain is a sizable deterrent in terms of SU preparation.

Anyways, the issue was more the level of troops on strategic - for example - taking Scotland with 1 or 2 units and then dumping 10 or so there immediately - perhaps Strategic movement should come one phase after a beachhead is established to simulate having to hold onto gains for a season before major exploitation.

[dobeln]

Well, having more turns (monthly) would result in roughly 12*5 = 60 turn games. That's a bit too much, imho - especially for PBEM.

[Pocus]

ORIGINAL: hickmanj

Anyways, the issue was more the level of troops on strategic - for example - taking Scotland with 1 or 2 units and then dumping 10 or so there immediately - perhaps Strategic movement should come one phase after a beachhead is established to simulate having to hold onto gains for a season before major exploitation.

That's the thing which bother me too. As there is no interception, its too easy to achieve DDay with Germany in 40. And even if the transports are sunk afterward, thats too late if 8 german corps with supplies are in scotland.

[Dalwin]

ORIGINAL: IDrinkBeer

It makes sense to me that Germany, for example, could make a push and send two or three infantry to Africa, and then maybe one or two more as reinforcements - instead I can dump 10 units in one season if I desire....

That makes 10 less infantry to support your SU campaign. They will be sorely missed... [;)]

Even though I often say the very same thing, it is an oversimplification. In my latest game, I had roughly 15 units committed to each of the NE and NW corners of Africa. IN the NW the WA took Morrocco and never moved further. They gradually built up and so did I. It was a long and bloodless stalemate. The end result was I never had to defend Italy and never lost it.

In the NE, the 15 units, most of which were militia, overran Egypt and pushed east. Not only did the Iraqi resources pay enough to build the whole force I used and then some, the eventual push north into the Caucuses crippled the Russian economy to the point where I had roughly even numbers on the east front in Sp '45 and was holding the first row or two of Russian provinces still.

Granted, the heavy commitment to Africa meant that I never seriously threatened Moscow. I still fell only 4 short of the 70 for automatic victory and I blame that on a very poor showing by the Japanese AI. Sometimes it does well and sometimes never really gets out of the starting block.

[Dalwin]

ORIGINAL: hickmanj

I have wrestled with this question a lot this week.

Case in point:

As Germany (who should really only be able to transport a limited number of troops to be even remotely historical) I can transport massive amounts of troops on strategic move to Africa. Likewise, the WA can transport hideous amounts on strategic.

Tactical is balanced - it is the follow-up that ruins gameplay imho .... although I am posting b/c I'm sure there are probably play-tested realities I'm not thinking of?

It makes sense to me that Germany, for example, could make a push and send two or three infantry to Africa, and then maybe one or two more as reinforcements - instead I can dump 10 units in one season if I desire....

I realize the "turns" represent 3 months - so that brings in my second question: why was so much time reflected in 1 phase? is it to make the game accessible and open to the more casual gamer? I would love to see a patch that makes the phases 1 or 2 months at a time for a much longer, more intricate game strategically.

That would make strategic balance more, well, balanced. As it is it seems too easy to exploit transports.

Thoughts?

J

I fully agree. The ease of strategically moving via tranport seems way out of proportion. I think the SR capacity of transports should be cut in half at least. This would still allow the WA to put a huge force ashore in Europe once they gain a beachhead, assuming they piled up forces in Britain as preparation.

[artgrtr8u]

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if, once a transport had been used for amphibious attack, it couldn't be used for strategic movement, or at least for a lot less.

ex: I have 2 Ger. transports off Egypt with combined capacities of 50/6. After landing an attacking infantry in Egypt their capacity drops to 45/1 (maybe it was 50/1, not in front of the game right now). If the attack capacity dropped by 84% maybe the strat. capacity should drop comparatively, down to 8.

[Uncle_Joe]

Yes, its the Scotland --> England thing that bugs me about it the most.

It seems to be that England's 'defense' is that it is not worth taking, not that it would be overly hard to take. I believe Hitler would have disagreed about it not being worth taking though...

IMO Strategic movement over sea should be subject to Op fire from ships in port either in the terriory or adjacent or something. They should DEFINATELY be subject to Op fire from aircraft in the invaded terriory, but it seems like only Arty does so.

On another note, it doesnt even seem possible to have 'The Battle of Britain' as German fighters cant even reach England, can they? (without upgrades) In any event, it appears unnecessary because you dont seem to really need air superiority in order to launch an invasion of England (at least vs AI).

I hope something is eventually done about the ease of conduction mass overseas unit transfers. Its not something that breaks the game, but it does allow for some really darned a-historical options to be available, many well beyond the capabilities of the actual combatants.

[CommC]

I don't know, after the allies took the beaches at Normandy, they put an awful lot of troops and supplies on the beach quickly.

If you want to defend against amphibious assault, you need to put a lot of troops on the beach and post aircraft on combat air patrol over the water. Ships in front of your beach wouldn't hurt either.

[Uncle_Joe]

The Allied build-up to D-Day was significantly bigger than ANYTHING Germany could have mustered in '40. Yet they could pull off an invasion of England with a little bit of work in WaW. There is nothing that really prevents them from doing so if they want to except that the time, money, and troops commited probably arent worth the investment considering what you need for Russia.

The British 'mainland' doesnt really contribute all THAT much to the W.Alled economic cause and there are no other effects of taking the island (I believe Hitler considered it likely that Britain would bow out of the war completely after losing the home isles, leaving him free to take on the bigger fish). In the game, the US Production is so huge that losing the English factories/resources is not crippling. All they need is a quiet place to invade (even Portugal) and they can still send in the hordes.

All of that means that taking England is not really worth the hassle it takes to conquer and garrison it. The 'absolutes' of the politics means that we KNOW that England will continue to fight on and we KNOW that the US Industry is more than capable of taking on Germany solo (facts that were not known in 1940).

So, in essence, it seems that England's defense comes more from German apathy about conquering them than from England's ability to prevent it.

Note that I did see that in the next patch, the AI will be tweaked to provide England with a much more aggressive defense of the home isles. Hopefully that will solve the problems in Human/AI games and some extensive playing will show that it really is difficult to take England in Human/Human games.

[Halsey]

You haven't tried WITP I gather? A campaign game is 1600 turns.[:D]