Invasion thoughts

[Flaviusx]

With proper use of forces the Axis can make it damn near impossible to reinforce Greece.

Just park a 9 stack of Italian ships outside of Athens. Good luck trying to dislodge that. Airborne can drop directly to the port SE of Athens. More airborne and mech exploiting out of Albania can both occupy the two hexes directly north of Athens to prevent British reinforcements from sneaking in via Saloniika (and also lockdown the entire rest of the Greek army futher north.) You have up to 6 tactical bombers between Italy and Germany to conduct long range naval interdiction around Greece.

This is entirely leaving aside the one turn coup de main method using naval landings, which I don't really care for because I'd rather use amphibious points elsewhere than Greece.

But even if the British somehow manage to get in there and turn it into a slog it is still worth doing.

I think the Italians should also have a big enough force next to Egypt to make the British think twice about sending too much to Greece.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I agree with Flavius that the value of taking Greece to get Yugoslavia is too valuable for the Axis to pass up. But even if invasions are made more difficult this won't stop Greece from falling. The Axis will just load up Albania with German armour, partroopers and air.

As far as invasions go my suggestions are:

1. Increase the cost of landing craft from 15 to 60. Historically the cost to build enough landing craft to transport a division easily cost as much as a destroyer flotilla. So at half the price it is still a bargain. But I would like to see 50% of the landing craft returned to a players pool 3 turns after use. So effectively they would cost 30 production.

2. Work it so each nation (not player) gets to choose 3 invasion hexes. Once chosen an invasion hex cannot be invaded until the next turn (or 2 turns later would be even better). A Nation can cancel one of its chosen invasion hexes and replace it with another; but again would have to wait a turn or two before invading. Of course, I have no idea if this is possible to code.

Seems reasonable to limit the number of invasions and introduces some kind of planification. First one should be easy to change. Second one may be less more trivial.

[Cigar King]

[/quote]

In WiF doing this is much harder as the Allies can impact the situation far better.

Since you appear to be a fan of WiF, have you considered making the production of units, somewhat random, like WiF did? You buy a unit type, but, you don't get to see the values until it is produced. Could be better, could be worse. Suggest you could just add a slight +/- modifier to their experience. Perhaps for Warplan 2.

Just a thought.

[AlvaroSousa]

I am and I am not a fan of WiF. I played it when it was 3rd edition. I recently played 3 full games. One went to the very last impulse. The game now is incredibly complex. Complexity does not equal depth.

WarPlan is meant to remove complexity for players. I looked at the latest CEaW and played a couple games with a friend. So many specific rule sets there. My head exploded. I don't want to do that here. As is I have to write something for paratroopers so players know what is going on like I did for invasions. I see more and more posts about it.

So no mixing of units draws.

[sveint]

I just had an idea. Germany should be able to do max 1 invasion per turn. Italy max one. Soviets one. The Western Allies... one per turn in the early years, several (2,3,4?) in the later years.
Perhaps the same for paratroopers?

[Flaviusx]

Norway historically involved multiple landings.

As unhappy as I am with the current amphibious game, this is not easy to fix.

[sveint]

But in WarPlan Norway only involves taking Oslo.

And the Norwegian "landings" were not true amphibious landings, nor were they even of divisional strength.

[ncc1701e]

Another silly idea:
1. Major country can perform sea landings against minor country from 1939.
1. Major country can perform sea landings against another major country only starting 1942 or 1943.

[baloo7777]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

1. Major country can perform sea landings against another major country only starting 1942 or 1943.

That would preclude any sealion by Germany in 1940-41, wouldn't it?

[Flaviusx]

I mean, theoretically you could do some mass airdrop thing with a single landing point, but basically, yeah. This is too restrictive for Sea Lion.

This is too easy on the allies. The threat of Sea Lion does need to be there.

[AlvaroSousa]

Now you see all the problems with game design. It isn't easy. One of the comments in a review is that I don't rail road players in the game.

You can't have this...

...This game isn't historically accurate. On top of that why can't I build a 15,000 combat air force for the Germans?.... Thumbs down Steam, thumbs down...

As the UK you need to build to protect vs Sealion from turn one. In the early years it is the Axis time to play and have fun. In 1943+ it is the Allies turn.

[AlvaroSousa]

I think I realized why some of these invasion posts are off. When I test what they are posting it is fine.

I believe what was happening is that the invader has more than one land unit with the fleet. If one dies they still have another.

So I came up with a decision on how to handle invasion forces and interception. It was someone's suggestion not mine. I forgot who.

Sinking a land unit seems extreme as someone pointed out. But as of now players still think it's too easy to invade. My 1st statement might be the largest catalyst to this.

So damage will be applied to a land unit in the fleet at 3x strength loss of the damage
But each damage will also lower ALL of the fleet's land units effectiveness.

This should address both invasion tactics and lessen losing a Panzer to 1 plane.

[AlvaroSousa]

Rolling it around more in my head.

I don't want to remove OPs from the invasion force.

So I am now trying damage direct to unit 1 for 1. Means they won't sink
But each damage does a huge effectiveness penalty.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Now you see all the problems with game design. It isn't easy. One of the comments in a review is that I don't rail road players in the game.

You can't have this...

...This game isn't historically accurate. On top of that why can't I build a 15,000 combat air force for the Germans?.... Thumbs down Steam, thumbs down...

LOL. At least it proves that you didn't make a game for idiots.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

If there is a gimme way with paras then I have to nix it completely. BTW it's 1500 production.

As for the Greeks they are set up historically.

So let's Cost analysis this.

1 + 3 new air transports = 360
1 + 3 new paras = 720

I know landing by sea is tough when the UK is active there.

After some thought and looking at some math I believe you guys are correct. I will be removing the Yugoslavia event. I can't find a way to reasonable defend vs the paradrop version of this without making it an absolute decision. I can't even give them an air sup because they only had 78 aircraft in which probably only 2/3rds were operational. The cost benefit is too great spending 1080 to get 1500 yugo armies and not having to garrison Yugoslavia.

Even Homer can nod, Alvaro

Your analysis of the cost of invasion wrongly assumes that the new units have no value after invading Greece. The real 'cost' is effectively nil as per the analysis below .

None of the attacking units are lost. The paras and the transports can be used again, and half the PP para cost and all the manpower are returned on disbandment of the units. So the maximum possible cost is only 600 points lost - 2 new transports (they can't be disbanded but have some continuing value so I haven't put the 3rd as a 'lost' cost) and half the cost of 3 paras. For those Germans who buy a 2nd para anyway (?the majority), the real cost of getting Yugoslavia's 1500 points is only 360 points. The Yugo economy will soon repay those 360 points by making even more units/upgrades, and even the 600 points in time.

[AlvaroSousa]

I think that belongs in the Yugo post