Matrix Games Forums

I would contend that the laws of physics ARE being broken in the example of Italy in 1940. [:D]

To me, its not a hard attack to defend. That was never really the issue. The capability for surprise amphib ops on a massive scale is what bothers me. It doesnt matter whether its Italy in 1940 or Peru in 1946, to me, there should be some realistic constraints on what can be done in a 3 month turn with regards to invasions. You're going to tell me that it makes sense that I can recall transports from across the globe and send troops from 1000's of miles of way to participate in an invasion, but I cant move a Fleet from France to Madascar in the same turn? Thats doesnt make ANY sense.

All I want is some consistancy in the abstraction. Troops can move from Australia to England in one turn, yet it takes THREE turns for any ships to make the same journey. How's that work? Answer: Its an abstraction. And I have no problem with it. BUT when that same abstraction allows for bizarre attacks on areas that should, by all realism, be 'safe' from such things, thats when I call it into question. The transports, if used for military purposes (ie invasions) should have the same constraints as other military ships. They should not be exempt from reality when other ships are not granted that capability.

But regardless, its clear that this is just a difference in expectations. Since its only a matter of opinion either way, neither side is likely to change. So, FWIW, its in the game, so its something that has to be dealt with. If at some future time, 2by3 decides they want to put a little more of the realistic constraints on the participants, then maybe we'll see some change to limit surprise amphib ops.

So it seems the main problems are Itialian surrender in 1940, too much transport movement and not enough Italian forces.
>Give Italy militia, just like everyone else (Except France, lmao!)
>>Don't allow transports who've taken advantage of "free" movement to be used for amphibious assault. Or make special "assault ships" which get burned up after use.
>>>Allow ships to "strategic move" from any one port to another (as long as there's a path clear of enemy ships, IE not through a blocade). The Germans regularly 'snuck' cruisers along the north coast of France, something impossible in GGWAW. But it took a while, hense making it a 'strat move'.
>>>>Make Italian surrender for only North Italy before 43, then for North & South in 44 & following.

Another idea is "static" defensive forces, like in Panama (which is defenceless in GGWAW) and several other historically well-defended places. They could be damaged by pre-attack strikes, but couldn't be moved around. They'd be better than Militia, but not quite as good as Infanrty (or just as good as starting infantry, but not be improved by tech advances). They could replace some generated militia perhaps, making those 2nd & 3rd attacks a little easier Japan could have extra static defenders added in 44 & 45, to reflect their extensive preperations to repel invasion.

France deserves to surrender, I think we can all agree on that [:D]

Hello Everyone I am new to WaW playing my first game now with the AI, want to get some experience before I play by email, and I think some changes should be made to amphibious assaults to make it more realistic. Here are a few suggestions which might solve the problem with amphibious assults over long distances.

1. When using the transport ship for an amphibious assault they should move like any other type of ship. They should use supply for movement and use more supply for extended movement like any other type of ship.
2. To load the transport with troops use the same procedure as with paratroops to bombers. Maybe decrease the transport movement for being loaded and limit how much a transport can carry, one unit per ship.
3. Amphibious assults should use tactical movement.

Transport ships would use the above only for amphibious assaults oterwise they move as they do now.

That's a nice, simple solution Except that invasion forces really did come from far-off staging areas. However, allowing transports to "trade off' their cargo could solve things.
Of course when a transport has any cargo, in the current system it can't move...
The transports should be able to carry a unit & 1-2 supply, and do no further transporting that turn. Carrying a Tank would take the entire capacity of course.

[&:] Why not simply fix it? If you move the transport from the end ot the beginning of chain it spends all the movementpoints from the transports in the chain. It would be logical and minimize micromanagement.

You couldn´t simply colloapse the whole supplychain in one move from one end to the other doing surprise invasions everywhere. Just my 2 cents.

The more limited ability of transports to teleport around the world would make island in the pacific more important as well asstageging areas for supplies and "secure" resource basis if your tansport chain got hurt etc.

I simply don´t see the point why the transport move the way they do right now. It seems like a bug for me.

For me these gamey tactics which are right now possible Italian invasion turn 1, Pearl Habor knockout etc. are a real turnaway from this really good game

The Turn 1 Italian invasion is very defensible though. Its not really that big of a deal in the long run. I still dont care for the capability, but the effect ends up minimal if you cover your southern flank a bit.

As for the Pearl Harbor attack, well, I think 'surrounding' Pearl to kill the retreating fleets is a waste of time. You kill a few more ships, but in the end, you are delaying taking the resources that you need a lot more urgently. Since you arent bagging Carriers at Pearl, you really arent slowing the WAllies down all that much by destroying a few extra ships. YMMV

I simply don´t see any reason this rule exists. And I still don´t think that a surprise invasion in Italy should be possible. I would simply like to limit the movement flexibility of the transports.

Well, I agree 100%. But so far, it doesnt appear to be enough of a 'problem' for 2by3 to want to make a change. Except for those first turns, its overall effect on the game (at this point, anyways) seems to be pretty small.

As for why it exists, my guess is as it was above...it was simply an interface aid to prevent needing to move tons of transports just to extend a chain. Unfortunately, that capability can also be used offensively as we have seen.

If the see fit to want to change it, I'll all for it. I dont think it needs to be there either. If its left alone, I've already worked around it and so far had little problem. It certainly makes playing Germany a little more challenging at times (which I dont think is a bad thing).

Italy may be a little too easy early on. Letting them spawn militia like any other would be closer to their real life OOB, without shifting the balance of the game significantly. Northern italy would require determination to take, if it has at least an art and a aa, but the south still needs to be reinforced.

I really don´t understand why they simply don´t fix this stupid tansport rule.

Sombra;

The idea is not that these are "actual" ships per se, but rather networks of convoys and transports around the globe. It is NOT unrealistic that in 90 days (if "pre-planned") these vessels could be uilized from around the globe in one location. It would be a monumental effort in logistics and supply, but nonetheless doable.

We have to remember that these turns are ENTIRE SEASONS, not days or weeks. LOTS can happen in three months.

The Italian attack requires almost the entire effort of the Allies to pull off. To say that means it is not a "bug" or "gamey" but rather a bold and decisive move to try to end the war quickly. I think the rules are fine, as is.

later

Mike

I strongly disagree that the rules are fine as is. To think that Britain, following the fall of France in Spring 1940, could in any way pull off a successful invasion of Italy AND have Italy immediately surrender as a result is beyond belief. The Axis resources required to defend against this "exploit" are unreasonable for Spring 1940.

Roy

ORIGINAL: mike mcmann

... The Italian attack requires almost the entire effort of the Allies to pull off. To say that means it is not a "bug" or "gamey" but rather a bold and decisive move to try to end the war quickly. I think the rules are fine, as is.

later

Mike

Well I happen to think it is "unreasonable" for the Germans to be able to invade and conquer France, Benelux, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, and Palistine in the first three months of 1940 as well but you don't see evereyone jumping on that now do you.[:-]
All it takes to defend against the British invasion of Italy is for the u-boat in the south Atlantic to sink one transport off the coast of africa, and for the Italian fleet to be stationed in the West Med. No brainer. However doing this will slow down the German advance... which is great because it keeps them from doing unrealistic things too. All you Axis fan boys out there really have to stop believing the Germany can conquer all of Europe in 6 months!!![8|]

Why is it that if someone wants to add (or remove) something for realism's sake, that they have to be 'Axis fanboys' who want to be able to take over the world in 6 months?

Personally, I'd ALSO prefer if Germany couldnt take Palestine in the first 3 month too. I also happen to think that its a little to EASY to pull off Sea Lion and to take Spain/Gibraltar. Does that make me an ALLIED Fanboy who wants Germany to be conquered in 6 months? I dont think so...

Would it be so terrible if transports had to obey the same laws as other units? Why is there such resistance to any change? Thats what I truly dont understand. I can live with the game either way, but it doesnt hurt to hear what people want to change.

Because in the end, guess what...you all called the people complaining about Heavy Bombers and 'super' Tanks 'whiners' (and Axis fanboys). Many also said that such units were realistic and that the game was fine if you knew how to play and blah-blah. Well...it appears they are going to be tweaked in the next patch. So apparently SOMEONE else agreed that a change should be made.

All I'm saying is dont be so quick to jump on people who are looking for a change. Not every change is a good one and not every one will be made. Some request ARE made by people who dont fully understand the game's mechanics. But to automatically and categorically ignore all requests for tweaks to the game does not help make it better.

You are right. I was a little heavy handed in my comments and ment them with a little tongue in cheek.[&o]

I really believe that the first turn invasion threat needs to be there though. If not, then the German player will strip Italy clean and use the forces elsewhere.. N. Africa, Russia, Sweden... whatever. Not realistic either. I feel, just me, that this is a good balancing feature.

I agree that everyone that suggests changes is not someone who does not understand the mechanics of the game. But it insist something is broken because you don't like it is just as bad as my white washing everyone with the same brush. Some changes will and are being made, but some people need to think through the consequences before demanding the changes.

Lots of good discussion here, my thoughts are in line with some points made by MM and UJ. It seems we have to find a compromise in the reality and the abstract representation, but I'm not sure yet where that meeting place is. Transports represent the merchant marine network of trade, as MM highlighted. Should this network be able to be redeployed halfway around the world in 3 months(realistic movement ala UJ)?

Franky I'm not sure that time span over that distance is accurate for a redeployment of the scale needed for a major invasion. Perhaps some nautical orientation would help from some knowledgeable scources.

Now for amphibious invasions. We know it does not take specialized landing craft if you are disembarking into a functional port facility previously captured or lightly defended. On the otherhand if you are assaulting beaches of strongly defended coastal port areas you will need specialized landing craft, of which there is no representation in the game other than the alternative function of transports(abstracted).

So how is this uniquely differentiation of the use of transports resolved? Not sure right now, but we can remedy this problem as I do believe the game has the flexibility to accomplish the mission.

Perhaps limit the area of traverse for transports in a three month turn as was typical in WW2.

Maybe some kind of tech upgrade for transports before they can pursue an amphibious assault(aa) or limit the function of aa to certain units, say infantry only.

If a port facility exists in a region, maybe it should have to be captured by aa and paratroop assault before units are allowed to unload, perhaps a degree of repair also. Should these actions all be possible in a 3 month turn?

There is a lot to account for in this function of transporting and assault and I by no means have a conclusive answer, but somewhere out there is a workable solution, we just have to find it. Presently the function IMO leaves some wish of a greater simulation of reality.

I really don't think there is that big of a problem here. Yes, transports can move all over the globe. I don't think we *want* realism with transport management. How tedious! World in Flames (a board game) gets into this and it is painful, IMHO.

No one thusfar has noted that troops transported over two regions suffer a -1 DIE to their attack per region. Examples are given of units being transported to Italy from great distances, but when they hit the beaches they will be unable to even attack!

Just defend Northern Italy with 2-3 Militia, 1-2 artillery, AAA, and 0-1 fighters. If you have an AAA and a fighter, then it is very likely your artillery will survive the 2 CAG so only 1 artillery is needed. If you have only AAA and no fighter, having 2 artillery means you'll still get to hit transports coming in to drop off troops. Southern Italy can be held with 2-3 Militia, 1 Inf, 2 Art, AAA, and perhaps a fighter. Northern Italy is a fortress so it's easier to hold.

You can use even less if you need to, but it starts to get risky. The key potential forces to be brought against you are...
2 CV's with 2 CAG; Gibraltar: 1 Militia, 1 Art, 1 AAA; Malta: 1 Militia, 1 Art, 1 AAA; Suez: 1 Inf, 1 Militia (can't remember if there's more in Suez - this is from memory). If the WA player uses units from further away, the only purpose they serve is trying to have sufficient numbers of Militia/Infantry to force the retreat. They can't actually hit anything.

Well said Kiddo!

I agree!

Mike

the more I play the more I don't mind either the "italian gambit" or the "peal harbor surround". I think the only problem is not expecting these from the start (or not knowing they're even possible). after seeing these in action and planning ahead the next game, they don't seem to change the course of events very much.

To me the biggest problem is the automatic surrender of Italy prior to 1943 or at least in 1940. This makes the gamble worth the effort for the Allies. How about this to add a little uncertainty: prior to 1943 Italy does not automatically surrender if southern Italy is captured. Or alternatively, there is some percent chance that Italy surrenders that goes up by year: 1940 - 25%, 1941 - 50%, 1942 - 75% and 1943 and beyond 100%.