Matrix Games Forums

Area 1

2 and 3

The Holland and Denmark beachheads May 1944

+

Brittany

and Italy

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I can see the terrain in Holland being an issue, but otherwise I don't see the problem.

Denmark is beyond effective aircover, I would think the LW, even in a reduced state, could make it pretty hot there. His invasions are really piecemeal and poorly designed, IMO.

He would be much better off just coming ashore in force under heavy aircover, and pounding the Wehrmacht into dust. But he probably doesn't know how to do that.

Good pt, but yes and no.

A good air commander can easly drop the LW to nothing by Jan44 the spamming of airbases is as it is with WitE which = house rules and not the rule set.

So invading Denmark in Jan 44 would be a cake walk and then base WA air force in Denmark game set match.

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


The Allies need to be able to invade less but with more chance of success. Right now there is little chance of success so the only viable mechanic is to invade more. As the Axis have fantasy logistics the vicous circle will go round

+1

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

I know that both the terrain in Holland and the VP system is being watched and thought about by the designers.

I am not so sure about the invasion system but I am sure they will take it into consideration.

Talk is cheap and opinion are like back sides, everyone has one.

The Holland terrain should have been done before release, the VP system and invasion system I agree required more data, but the Holland terrain is just " you fill in the blanks"

ORIGINAL: NotOneStepBack

Regardless out the outcome, this game is hilarious. It's like intentionally trying to show how crazy it can get.

It does seem the community has fallen off a cliff with activity.

Yes reminds me of WitE the first yr when I never reported anything, just completely drove tanks though the loopholes in the system.

Haaaa the good old days

ORIGINAL: Helpless

I can see the terrain in Holland being an issue, but otherwise I don't see the problem.

It is considered to convert it to swamp (polders).

This is the map posted by Joel some days ago. New art for the tiles is still missing.



Tile map provides some extra flexibility.

+1000

ORIGINAL: loki100

I really don't want to see the game tweaked just because someone has outcheesed Pelton. His whole approach is based on rule exploitation and then complain voluminously when someone turns the tables on him.

I'm not sure the proposed Netherlands map is right. Half my family are Dutch, I visit a lot. Typical Dutch countryside in the Polder districts is very open terrain (with high LoS potential), and lots of small drainage ditches ... combined with areas of open field and good transport links.

So for tank movements there are some problems but its not classic swamp/marsh nor is it the restricted countryside of Normandy. Setting up ambushes would be hard, but control of key transport intersections vital and it would be hard to evade regular urban conflict due to the challenge of outflanking.

To be closer to what it would be like, you don't want the high defensive benefits of marsh with the knock on impact on armoured efficiency, you might want some sort of movement penalty to reflect the substantial risk of localised traffic jams

That's why I play so many games to show case the cheese.

also bro I warned people about spamming invasions long before release.

I got so pissed off ( hard to believe ) I stopped testing, which was great advise from Flaviusx.

I value your opinion on the terrain and your personal opinion based on real life data.

+1

ORIGINAL: meklore61

I know at one time allied shipping was taking huge hits, but from what I've seen since .21, troop transports rarely get hit, even in heavily contested areas. The reason is that if you move 4 hexes at a time, you drop the odds of being attacked to such a low number it's almost impossible to get hit. Allies aren't taking nearly enough shipping losses moving thru high interdiction. Take away the move 4 hexes at a time, which I'm not sure how you could do that, and the allies would lose a lot more ships. I believe that the allies got it too easy when naval interdiction was changed, but there's a happy medium somewhere.

Once the allies start losing more troop ships, they will have to stop all that invading. I'm not sure how he's keeping them supplied, and ferrying troops across should be hard. With all the invasions he's done, his troop ships should be shot out imo.

Another suggestion is that once you pull a TF from a successful invasion, it can't be used to prep again for so many turns. 8 Turns, which is two months to refit the fleets to prep for a new invasion?

Yes Germany could land troops in England using that exploit.

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



Losing troop ships was the exception from mid 1943 until the end of the war...INCLUDING the Pacific. In fact you can easily find the list on line. Its pretty short.

What they should of had was amphib points as well (separate from) troop ships. These suffer horrible attrition with every invasion and the allies frantically tried building them...and was limited by what they could do by the number they had or where saving for future invasions.

Since adding amphib points is probably work...it may be easier to just turn troop ships into amphib points. Lessen the amount. And allow unlimited moveing by sea of troops. The allies will be restricted by port capacity anyways

Good idea

The invasion system needs and out side the box fix.

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

I am confused? Is Pelton upset at just the notion of an invasion? He cannot be upset at the result, these invasions are not going to accomplish anything.

I think some players in their rush to complain about exploits are missing the overall picture of winning the war.

The war is lost that's a give, but this silliness of 6 invasions or more is simply Middle Earth stuff.

I will probably win the game still, but historically planning one took more then a few weeks.

I think I responed to everyone.

meklore61 and Liquidsky are on the right track I believe.

I have never claimed to have the right answers, but simply point out things that just don't fit into the historical possiblitys.

Generaly I pt something out and someone else fixes the exploit, bug or Middle Earth feeling rule sets.

Thanks for all the good input.

Hopefully someone can fix the issues.

I will keep playing on.

I will probably win the game still, but historically planning one took more then a few weeks.

When you compare the historical invasion schedule and OoB to what you have to do to accomplish the same in the game what I looked at compared well (talking about Sicily through Anzio).
Perhaps someone with a better background than me can chime in with how many landings the Allies accomplished in the breadth of WW2, but it wasn't a small number.

Unlike Pelton's opponent in this game the WA dared not risk failure anymore than possible, and so delayed their invasion relative to this example, with a better outcome.
I'm not sure it is necessary to 'fix' the game to stop a player from doing what looks like a losing strategy.

With respect to launching invasions themselves, the Allied player certainly has a cost to consider also. Not an AP cost, or even just the attrition of feeble invasions, but I think most importantly the opportunity cost of poorly using important assets. There are weather windows more making invasions, and making the most of them too.

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

I am confused? Is Pelton upset at just the notion of an invasion? He cannot be upset at the result, these invasions are not going to accomplish anything.

I think some players in their rush to complain about exploits are missing the overall picture of winning the war.

The war is lost that's a give, but this silliness of 6 invasions or more is simply Middle Earth stuff.

I will probably win the game still, but historically planning one took more then a few weeks.

Did they break down their divisions and invade with regiments? I think that is the only way to get them off that quick. Prep points build pretty slowly, at least for me. Someone can invade like this with the current game rules if they wish. If I was the Axis player I really would not mind. It gets the WA player no where. As you put it, these are POW beaches.

I would actually prefer these meaningless invasions since they are a waste of just about everything the WA has. Men, ships, prep points, supply and VP.

I guess it might be an 'exploit' but I always think of an exploit as something to game the system in being beneficial. This looks to be something that would lose you the game.


I also hate the idea of Holland being a swamp. Swamp to me means someplace humans cannot live. I think a new type of terrain would be a good idea. Something that impedes armor movement and supply but does not affect infantry very much.
Polder when it is dry is actually not that bad to walk over. I am not a Holland expert but I have been there a handful of times and besides being very flat, it has a good road network and the ground did not seem overly spongy.

It should also impede fortification building. I imagine the water table is quite shallow and building field fortifications would be difficult to do.

ORIGINAL: Seminole

I will probably win the game still, but historically planning one took more then a few weeks.

When you compare the historical invasion schedule and OoB to what you have to do to accomplish the same in the game what I looked at compared well (talking about Sicily through Anzio).
Perhaps someone with a better background than me can chime in with how many landings the Allies accomplished in the breadth of WW2, but it wasn't a small number.
ing important assets. There are weather windows more making invasions, and making the most of them too.

Including the Pacific, it was just under 30.

Maybe change the name of Bocage to Bocage/Polder...and use that.

Invasion #7