Landing in a non-base hex

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I don't have the time now to go into detail, but thanks for extending the invitation to come back later with my argument (I feel a bit like Jim Carrey in The Mask when he uttered "Somebody stop me!")[:D]

You, sir, have a standing invitation!

I won't stop you - I'm after the truth. And, yes, I can handle the truth!

[:D]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Ah Bullwinkle, you know how much I admire your posts, particularly when you attempt to pull that rabbit out of the hat, but on this theme we part. You might recall my post of some months ago (in a discussion about CD capabilities on Hawaii) regarding cliffs, mangrove swamps, tides etc limiting invasion sites in real life but not being captured by the game engine. So I won't repeat myself here, however a few enlightening points about the Great Australian Bight might be useful.

Ever wondered why the AE game map has no dot bases (let alone a real base) between Esperance and Ceduna? That is because there is nothing there to support any permanent human establishment. Basically:

(a) no beaches, certainly nothing wide enough to support the amphibious TF unload rates of AE
(b) predominantly vertical cliffs which could be scaled by individuals reprising the role of mountain goats but no possibility of getting vehicles/artillery tubes etc up on to the plateau
(c) a distinct lack of drinkable water to support a battalion, let alone an AE invasion force from a 100 ship sized Amphibious TF (or 2 or 3 such TFs as employed by AE players). Would have to be a pretty tough choice for a commander to make, do I carry water or ammo (remembering just how heavy water is in comparison to carrying a 100 rounds of small arms ammo in addition to C rations all the time moving up to the plateau like a mountain goat) sufficient to see me through the AE engine 3-4 days minimum to walk from one road/trail less hex to the next. I hope we all remember what brought about the disaster of the battle of Hattin in 1187 AD, and they only had to cross 10 miles of waterless terrain
(d) its a pretty strong and cold swell coming up from Antarctica which intersects the coast along the Great Australian Bight

Of course if really pressed[:D], I'll detail why in general I concur with Jim D Burns. In WITP classic, landing on a non base/dot hex was extremely gamey, IMHO, in AE it is almost but IMHO not yet quite acceptable to do so.

I accept that opinions will differ on this. People make HRs and are happy, so who am I to tell them nay?

I've been from Adelaide to Perth on the train, somewhat north of the coast, but I understand how rough that land is, certainly water-wise. Any RL general would be insane to try to land on that coast.

BUT, in game terms, to get there to try the Japanese player must run a naval search gauntlet that ranges from Are You Kidding Me? on the east, to Do You Feel Lucky, Punk?, on the west. If the Allied player has no naval assets at Sydney or Perth to intercept, then shame on him. The Japanese player is also going to be at fuel limits going that far south.

He can get ashore, yes, because the map isn't impassable as it perhaps should be. The devs made the map, and perhaps they envisioned no off-base invasion attempts, but they also left the engine alone to allow them.

But once he's ashore, then what? He's weeks and weeks away from attacking anything, with no hope of reenforcement. He's too far away for barge resupply (fuel again.) The Japanese don't have any AKAs, and very few 1944 LSTs. So his troops, out of the war for months, march across desert, drinking, yes, Magic Game Water, and arrive at someplace they want to attack, and are met by the might of the Aussie army, railed there in sweet comfort, well-supplied, with nearby national HQs, and enough planes to darken the sky.

If the Japanese bring enough to really fight, they strip somewhere else. And if they invade through the Bight, it's like Cortez burning his ships. Win, or die. A stupid, stupid move. But not, IMO, one a player should be artificially prevented from making by a HR.

Thanks for the geo lesson too. I really want to go back to Australia before I kick off. Just this week I was urging a friend stuck on business in central Asia to come home on the Pacific route, and to swing down to see Oz for a week. Reccoed the Great Barrier Reef since he would only have a week. Alas, the skies cleared and he's coming back through Frankfurt after all.

[Zemke]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I think it's fine landing in any hex. Terrain does matter and you can not land successfully just anywhere.

Also, as far as "...limitations of the land combat system limit the ability to react to an off base (or dot) landing..." this is off the mark. If an invasion takes place 46 miles away well, yeah, your LCU's ability to react will be limited - by distance! It is the laws of physics in action. You don't get the 'ability to react' just because your opponent did something. The game is supposed to be trying to model reality. When a landing took place 46 or 92 miles away one side couldn't call "Foul! I can't react to that".

I think restricting landings to only dots/bases is itself a gamey limitation. I simply do not believe that every suitable landing site has been given a base.

YMMV [:)]

I agree, you should be able to land where the terrain allows you too. He is going to pay the price in the inability to sustain the attack because he will not have any port. If the Allies can hold, he is sure to lose in the long run. Look at the Normandy landings, the Allies needed to take a port and soon, which is why the quick capture of Cherbourg was important, the Allies needed a port.

Perhaps the engine needs a patch to make landing in an area without a port harder, which is better than making you conform to landing right in the teeth of the enemy defense each and every time. This is not a one sided issue and would apply to both sides.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Agreed, Frank. What Jim is really saying is that the map is wrong for not having prohibited ships from crossing that hex side.

It can go either way. Either prohibit naval moves into hexes that can’t possibly suit large scale invasions, or simply place dot hexes in any hex that geography shows could have supported such an invasion. And I’m not talking about a couple hundred guys landing off of a barge carrying their own provisions with them in a commando style raid.

I’m talking about locations with deep water to allow deep draft ships to get in close enough to shore to be able to efficiently unload massive amounts of tonnage. Things like tidal conditions, surf conditions, local transportation networks, etc., all played a role in a given locations ability to suit large scale amphibious operations.

Just because it was possible to sail up and dump a boatload of guys on a given strip of land does not mean that location would have been able to support amphibious operations for large scale combat formations.

The militaries of the world put millions of man hours into studying conditions and the sites that were found to be exposed to possible landings were identified and defended. That’s why I say if a location was able to support such a landing it should be a dot hex, because they were actually pretty rare, not nearly as common as some here apparently think.

Placing prohibited hexsides instead of simply adding some dot bases would be a lot more work, as most empty hexes would not be suitable for large scale amphibious ops.

Jim

[PMCN]

They landed on the coast so obviously they were landing at "ports" as essentially every village on the sea has a port (it pretty much would not exist otherwise) but they had no plans to capture a major port in the first part of the invasion. And the minor ports they landed on where insufficient to allow the sort of ships you need to support several divisions in combat to dock and off load. So no they had no "port" objectives for the first week beyond setting up the mulberries.

I never said anything about air strips so why did you mention them? An airstrip for fighters only requires flat ground. The area is rather flat so why would building air strips be an issue?

I've been to Cousillers-sur-Mer. There is no significant port there. There is also a single, narrow road leading from the beach inland. It is little wonder that a traffic jam of epic proportions held up the Canadian's more than the germans, though I would not call the landing a "cake walk." Given they took around 50% casualties to the initial landing wave.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You defend it with ships, not troops. AE is as much or more a naval game as one of ground-pounding.

That's just absurd. I shouldn't have to worry about Japan landing along a 1000km+ long sheer cliff face period. This isn't command and conquer, it's supposed to be a game about history.

Jim

If that portion of Oz is 1000km long and all cliffs, then you have a problem with the map, not the game engine. The map has impassable mountains as a hex terrain option.

Interesting that the Great Australian Bight is being discussed. When I made the map, I actually wanted to make the Bight "un-invadeable" (is that a word?), but I didn't, simply because I looked for, but could not find, a map that showed exactly which parts of the Bight have the high cliffs. So not wanting to just guess, I left it alone (also taking into account that there were not likely to be a lot of invasions there).

So if someone does have a good idea of exactly which stretches of the Bight coastline are lined with cliffs I could happily amend the map to suit.

By the way, not all coastal hexes are able to be invaded in AE. For example, swamp hexes are not able to be invaded. This is done using a "not able to be invaded" attribute in the hex data. There is no need to use impassable hexsides like there was for the old WitP map.

So if there are other specific locations that could not be invaded at all (along the entire stretch of coast included in the hex) they could be treated in the same way.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the invasion of non-base hexes. That is perfectly fine as far as I am concerned. But I know there are a lot of people who prefer to restrict invasions in that way.

Andrew

[crsutton]

Well, there you have it. Some do and some don't.......
 
I for one don't. Best to talk to your opponent about this and come to an understanding and then stick to it. Remember, if it works for him then sooner or later it will work for you so you have lost nothing if he really wants to do it. Don't let it spoil your game with him...It will be fun either way.

[rader]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


P.S. The invasion code is specifically designed to simulate landings and the extra casualties units would face as they come ashore in a disorganized state in the face of hostile forces. Landing unopposed 40 miles away and then marching to the target is an exploit to bypass the invasion routines in game pure and simple. You can’t point to a single example in history that could possibly back up such a move, because historically any reasonable landing site was defended. In game every hex is a possible landing site, that isn't realistic at all.

But you do take heavy losses landing on an undefended beach. Especially heavy, actually because you can't prep for it.

[Oldguard1970]

Excellent conclusion! [&o]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, there you have it. Some do and some don't.......

I for one don't. Best to talk to your opponent about this and come to an understanding and then stick to it. Remember, if it works for him then sooner or later it will work for you so you have lost nothing if he really wants to do it. Don't let it spoil your game with him...It will be fun either way.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely
So no they had no "port" objectives for the first week beyond setting up the mulberries.

Port-en-Bessin was the fuel hub of the entire invasion PLUTO (undersea fuel pipeline) came ashore there. It wasn’t a major port no, but it did service shipping just like all the other small ports. More than likely only shallow draft AKLs and the tankers that used the ship to shore setup at Port-en-Bessin, but they were invaluable ports for the invasion.

I looked it up, besides Arromanches and Port-en-Bessin, the small ports of Grandcamp, Barfleur, Courseulles, Isigny and St. Vaast all served the invasion. They weren’t huge port facilities no, but combined with the mulberries they did allow the allies to adequately supply themselves for well over two months.

It hadn’t been planned for them to be used for such a long period of time initially. But the Germans did such a good job of destroying the Port facilities at Cherbourg that it became necessary for the campaign to rely on these small ports and the single surviving mulberry, and they did so without ever running into serious supply issues.

The single surviving mulberry itself could only handle about 7,000 tons a day. So over the beach unloading and these small ports handled the lion’s share of the supplies and troops that were delivered.

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely
I never said anything about air strips so why did you mention them? An airstrip for fighters only requires flat ground. The area is rather flat so why would building air strips be an issue?

Sorry I was responding to another poster further up-thread. Lazy posting practice on my part, sorry for the confusion.

Jim

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: rader

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


P.S. The invasion code is specifically designed to simulate landings and the extra casualties units would face as they come ashore in a disorganized state in the face of hostile forces. Landing unopposed 40 miles away and then marching to the target is an exploit to bypass the invasion routines in game pure and simple. You can’t point to a single example in history that could possibly back up such a move, because historically any reasonable landing site was defended. In game every hex is a possible landing site, that isn't realistic at all.

But you do take heavy losses landing on an undefended beach. Especially heavy, actually because you can't prep for it.

you do? Was this changed from WITP? Because in WITP it was like unloading in a friendly port.

[JeffroK]

Awkward argument here because its taking place on 2 separate threads.

Take away the Gt Oz Bight, I am sure the West Coast of the USA & Canada and Alaska have similar forbidding coastlines (eg Ketchikan), same goes for Alaska, Siberia, Japan & Korea.

Most of these hexes should be uninvadable, even some existing bases are "up-river" or are only docks and no invadable beaches.

I think the reason this wasnt pursued by the Devs is because in WW2 PTO, most of the Invasions were on 1 hex islands, against undefended back beaches which cant be a different hex because of scale( Koepang, Ambon, Rabaul, Milne Bay, Attu or Kiska?) or in a few cases against a defended location (Kota Bharu, Lingayen).   The Devs decided to allocate a base for Leyte, which didnt exist but was invaded and due to the US Armies abilities could be turned into a workable base, a similar decision for Ramree Island (nr Akyab).

If IRL major amphib assaults were made against continental hexes, I am sure they would not have been into the teeth of permanent CD defeses (anyone invading Bataan or Pearl Harbour??)

Is working on this a pwhex issue or something we cant fiddle with??