Italian morale

[scout1]

Kinda begs for a "cheaper" Div unit which is intended for garrison duty as opposed to one that can combine for a offensive corp ....

[Flaviusx]

The "cheaper" division unit is just a division set to garrison mode. Adding a further unit type for this is redundant.

[sveint]

I can see it now. The British land a whole armoured corps but there is no opposition,
so naturally they highjack the nearest train, load all their tanks on it and take the party
train to Torino! The Italians soon join in, all one big fiesta.

[AlvaroSousa]

They just rolled up an empty country side

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: AndrewKurtz

Agree - the invasion might still happen, but Italy falling will not, with proper garrisoning.

One air unit in the area and the invasion probably fails too if just a single unit with no other naval support (and given no naval units nearby, that is what it looks like)

I suspect there are no naval units nearby because he didn't need them because Sveint didn't have any bombers in range. But even if Sveint had 3 bombers in range that would likely not have been enough. It is too easy to move in other naval units (DDs are the best) one at a time to soak off all the interceptions. So it looks like the only way to stop this is to garrison all Italian cities that have production as well as all the ports. So yes it can be countered, but the fact that you have to counter something like this is, IMHO, ridiculous.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Agree, invasions are too easy. And, to defend sveint, I was the first to complain about the invasion of Rostov in the first turn of Barbarossa saying that it was not realistic (in a game versus sveint). And the game has been changed to avoid this invasion.

But, this does not prevent defending Italy, I agree...

And I think I was the second person sveint did that to, so Hadros' invasion is perhaps an example of the biter being bit.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: scout1

Kinda begs for a "cheaper" Div unit which is intended for garrison duty as opposed to one that can combine for a offensive corp ....

nothing to stop you using under-strength divs for the job.

[sveint]

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

And I think I was the second person sveint did that to, so Hadros' invasion is perhaps an example of the biter being bit.

There are basically two approaches to games like these. I want a more historical experience, while others are hyper-competitive
and will exploit any advantage possible. I don't really think the two types of gamers are compatible.

[MorningDew]

ORIGINAL: sveint

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

And I think I was the second person sveint did that to, so Hadros' invasion is perhaps an example of the biter being bit.

There are basically two approaches to games like these. I want a more historical experience, while others are hyper-competitive
and will exploit any advantage possible. I don't really think the two types of gamers are compatible.

I disagree - and looking at the Red Sea thread, sounds like you are the latter at times.

Over time, one of three things usually happens in a game that is trying to support historical reality. As things are identified, the game system is updated to not allow ahistorical issues, simple tactics to stop the ahistorical become standard or the gamers come up with house rules.

For example, if Alvaro does nothing,

* Simple strategy - Players should always garrison Italian morale hexes after US entry
* House rule of no Axis units using Red Sea or Persian Gulf (Red Sea to Persian Gulf allowed if Suez controlled)

In this case, I continue to hope for refinements that make invasions harder (as an example, limitations until the naval tech reaches some level simulating advances in landing craft or more op point hit for landing in harder terrain - perhaps impacted by naval tech) and would like to see the Red Sea/Persian Gulf boxes changes listed above codified as part of the game.

[MorningDew]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

They just rolled up an empty country side

Three mountain hexes (including the invasion hex), if that is what you mean by countryside.

Perhaps the OPS points lost should be amplified by landing in rougher terrain as a solution? Landing in mountain terrain should be very different than a beach.

[AlvaroSousa]

I could do something like 2x the terrain cost landing. Let me think about it. For infantry it works fine. But at the same time he didn't garrison the entire coast.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

I could do something like 2x the terrain cost landing. Let me think about it. For infantry it works fine. But at the same time he didn't garrison the entire coast.

Alvaro, I am not so sure that Sveint didn't garrison the entire coast. At a minimum I believe he garrisoned all of the ports. But even if Sveint didn't garrison the entire coast, the only consequences he should be made to suffer for his foolishness are those that are historically realistic/possible.

As a stupid example, lets assume that there were no limits on how far airborne units could be paradropped. After the US is in the war it transports most or all of it forces to Europe. The Axis player takes advantage of this by dropping 6 paratrooper corps stationed in various locations around Europe into New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston, etc. (sort of a Nazi Dawn). The Allied Player complains about this and everyone says "What are you whining about, you could have easily countered this by garrisoning all of your US Cities with a division each." On the one hand they would be right, the Allied Player knew the Rules and was stupid to leave the US devoid of any units. But at the same time, allowing paratroopers unlimited range would not have been historically accurate. I assume it is because you want the game to be historically accurate that you did give paratroopers a set drop range. This is why I hate it whenever something historically impossible happens in the game and people respond by saying there is a counter to it. For me it is irrelevant if there was a counter or not, impossible things should just not be allowed.

But enough of my rant. I like your idea of making units pay 2X the terrain cost. But actually I don't even think this is necessary. All that is required is that a unit pay 1X the terrain cost for the invasion hex/beach. As you can see from the screenshot above the armour was able to invade the mountain hex and still have its 1/2 OPs remaining. In other words, with the current system a unit pays no OPs for the invasion hes itself. But if you did this then I think you would need to round up the OPs a unit gets rather than rounding down. Otherwise and invading infantry corps with only 2 OPs would use 1 OP for the invasion hex/beach and 1 OP to attack, so it wouldn't have any OPs left to advance into the vacated hex if it's attack retreats the enemy unit.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

OK then I change my opinion. Invading units should only have 2 OPs, so this is clearly a bug. Alternatively, if this is WAD than taking advantage of it is, IMHO, cheesy.

Beware not to impact the 1940 invasion of Norway by the Germans... [:D]

Not sure how this affects the German invasion of Norway. Armour isn't used so the invading infantry will just get the 2 OPs.

Yeah, I just want to be sure any change won't impact this. [;)]

[AlvaroSousa]

Currently infantry only has 2 Opts after an invasion and there hasn't been a problem. Only this created one with the armor.

Units have the following movement capabilities
Always allow one movement.
A contested hex ignores ZoC.
Infantry was working fine.

Basically if you invade a clear beach you can attack twice, or attack once and move inland into another clear land time in the summer. Very reasonable.
If you land unopposed with no units near you can move 2 hexes. Very reasonable.

So the armor is really the problem. In one turn it landed and raced to the factory. Which even to me in a two week time no armor unit could do.

So the same 1/2 Opts rule will stand with an addition but no more than 2 Opts will be available after landing (attack/attack - attack/move - move/move). Since the real complaint is the armor dash. If it was an infantry he would have had a turn to rail a guy in the city. Which seems reasonable or at least march someone up.

This also makes invasions slightly more difficult as now terrain has more of an impact on landing sites.

In this case the armor would have only moved 2 hexes not 4.

My original intention with the 1/2 moves was attack/attack, attack/move, move/move action. I just forgot faster units.

[sveint]

ORIGINAL: AndrewKurtz

I disagree - and looking at the Red Sea thread, sounds like you are the latter at times.

Fair enough, I'll take that criticism. But it is always my intention to play a historically realistic game, within reason.

And thanks Alvaro for always listening to us players.

[MorningDew]

Very good change Alvaro. Thank you, as always, for listening, digesting and coming up with a good solution. I think this change will have a very positive impact.

[Harrybanana]

Thank you Alvaro, that will be a welcome improvement.[:)]

[MorningDew]

Confirmed with new beta - here is the invasion turn. Thank you!