Landing in a non-base hex

[rader]

This issue came up in our game when I landed in a non-base hex. I'm wondering what other people think about landing in a non-base hex (with a large number of troops, not just a fragment). For example, should the Japanese be able to land in the hex next to Darwin and walk overland to take it, and thus avoid the CD guns? I think yes, my opponent thinks no.

It seems to me that this kind of this happened a lot. Armies didn't land directly on top of fortified coastlines unless they had to - they would land at a quieter area and move in along the coast or inland. However, my opponent thinks this isn't handled well by the game system, and I am concisous that this could be a possibility. For example, I know the game system dosen't handle very small units well (like fragments) in these kind of situations.

I'm curious what other people think about this and why. If not, what about the game system handles it poorly? Why is it unrealistic, ahistroic, or otherwise gamey?

[kaleun]

I think it should be a base or a dot (possible base) hex.
The limitations of the land combat system limit the ability to react to an off base (or dot) landing and besides not all locations were adequate for amphibious landings and this is not represented in the game.

[eMonticello]

You mean this big gun is preventing you from landing at Darwin?

[seydlitz_slith]

ORIGINAL: eMonticello

You mean this big gun is preventing you from landing at Darwin?

Most likely it is.....guns like that will sink Japanese battleships in one turn of combat.

[Jzanes]

I am rader's opponent on this issue. I also posted on this. you can find my thread in the war room

tm.asp?m=2445940

[Oldguard1970]

The game design has to make trade-offs. The land combat options are limited. In addition, the geography cannot reflect actual landing concerns everywhere.

Accordingly, I agree that landing should be made at bases or dot hexes. That forces us to achieve substantial air and sea superiority before landing. That is a good simulation element.

[seydlitz_slith]

ORIGINAL: rader

This issue came up in our game when I landed in a non-base hex. I'm wondering what other people think about landing in a non-base hex (with a large number of troops, not just a fragment). For example, should the Japanese be able to land in the hex next to Darwin and walk overland to take it, and thus avoid the CD guns? I think yes, my opponent thinks no.

It seems to me that this kind of this happened a lot. Armies didn't land directly on top of fortified coastlines unless they had to - they would land at a quieter area and move in along the coast or inland. However, my opponent thinks this isn't handled well by the game system, and I am concisous that this could be a possibility. For example, I know the game system dosen't handle very small units well (like fragments) in these kind of situations.

I'm curious what other people think about this and why. If not, what about the game system handles it poorly? Why is it unrealistic, ahistroic, or otherwise gamey?

In some places there is no alternative other than to land in a non-base hex especially if it is a decently fortified base and all of the nearby hexes are non-base hexes. Several of the Soviet ports come to mind.

[rader]

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

In some places there is no alternative other than to land in a non-base hex especially if it is a decently fortified base and all of the nearby hexes are non-base hexes. Several of the Soviet ports come to mind.

These are exactly the places we are talking about also. The Soviet ports are murder on anything that tries to land on them. It seems like, faced with this, they would land upshore and avoid the guns.

[AcePylut]

The problem is not just 'getting on shore', it's establishing a base on shore that can bring supplies in from ships to the units up from. This usually means some sort of road, trailway, or terrain path that facilitates getting the supplies from the sea to the front lines. There's a reason the Allies didn't put their troops or supplies on the southeastern tip of Guadalcanal and march to Henderson - there's no way it could be done in any feasible amount of time... but due to the limitations of the engine, it's only a few days march for divisions and all their supplies for a month - to make this march.

So, imho, the dot bases (and up) are the "locations" that have the terrain that allows the infrastructure to support troops on the frontlines.

There's a reason those Sov forts were built as such and where they were... and one was so they can't be flanked by infantry landing 20 miles "up beach".

Most hr's are against landings at any non-dot or base hex.

[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 [:)]

[Roger Neilson II]

I think its all about game design, but I think its also about suitability of landing areas and looking at WW2 so many landings were forced to be in one place because it was the 'only' viable' landing area. I do regard it as wrong that a landing can be made where the game has decided its not possible to develop any sort of facilities - if the geography is rong then thats a game design feature and not the fault of the game player. I can't reconcile being able to land anywhere with my experience of being unable to embark tropps anywhere - if a bunch of half starved and desperate guys can't jump in the sea and swim to a boat then how come a fullt operational unit can go ashore at that point?

In theory I can drop any troops I like off the side of a boat and lets some of them make it to shore, when they get there will they have the equipment and supplies to fight?

Roger

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
If an invasion takes place 46 miles away well, yeah, your LCU's ability to react will be limited - by distance!

Well the 21st Panzer Division saw some of its elements travel well over 20km on June 6 and launch attacks against the landings. The armor elements of the division even drove all the way to the beach between the Canadians at Juno and British at Sword. It was a command decision to pull them back later in the afternoon.

That said the criticism of the Germans on June 6 was they were slow to react, historians pretty much concur they could have done a lot more if units had been released earlier in the day. So responding to an invasion 40 or so miles away should not take 4+ days as it would take in game depending on terrain.

The land portion of the game is the weakest part of the simulation. Players simply do not have their historical capabilities on land in this game and the scale of the hexes makes tactical moves like landing up the coast less than a military plausibility in this game. No one ever landed over 40 miles from their D-Day targets… ever. Taking advantage of the games land weaknesses by landing in non-base hexes is gamey in my opinion.

Jim

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.

[herwin]

My reaction is that you can build a base anywhere you can land a significant force. Hence, you should only land at potential base hexes. Of course, that means all potential base hexes should be dot hexes or better.

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

... No one ever landed over 40 miles from their D-Day targets… ever....

No, but they did land more than 40 miles from their campaign targets -- a lot. The d-day objectives (or targets, as you say) were simply those immediate land areas that were required to secure the beach, including those that restricted enemy reinforcement and movement. I've landed in non-dot hexes in AE (e.g., west of Rabaul) and marched to my ultimate objective. It takes a lot of time and resources, but it's sometimes better than hitting a major objective head-on with a direct invasion. With AKA and APA, my heavy equipment can join they fray. Without them, well, sorry, no artillery, tanks, etc.

I agree that the land model is quite rough, but for a strategic game, I think it works out well enough. Would I like it to be better? Absolutely. But, I know the chances are that are between slim and none, and strongly leaning toward none.

[rader]

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

There's a reason the Allies didn't put their troops or supplies on the southeastern tip of Guadalcanal and march to Henderson - there's no way it could be done in any feasible amount of time... but due to the limitations of the engine, it's only a few days march for divisions and all their supplies for a month - to make this march.

Isn't this because the Japanese had no shore defenses, few troops inland (mostly Korean labourers I thought), and the Americans wanted to take the AF as soon as possible? Of course landing up the shore and marching in would have taken more time and presented logistical problems, but it certainly would have been possible. It does take a long time to march through bad terrain in AE, and it is hard to land heavy equipment over the beach.

[treespider]

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... I've read countless times here about how the Japanese never ever landed on opposed beaches (when in fact they did on occassion)...now someone decides to conduct an unopposed landing and behold the howls of protest.

Nevermind the fact that the landing units now have no base from which to base air or store supplies and it will take a week plus to march to the nearest base...all the while undergoing air attack.

[treespider]

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.

Already did several months ago ...Barge Invasions ...when the Japanese conducted an unopposed landing from barges on the west coast of Malaya to bypass the front line ...

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

... No one ever landed over 40 miles from their D-Day targets… ever....

No, but they did land more than 40 miles from their campaign targets -- a lot. The d-day objectives (or targets, as you say) were simply those immediate land areas that were required to secure the beach, including those that restricted enemy reinforcement and movement. I've landed in non-dot hexes in AE (e.g., west of Rabaul) and marched to my ultimate objective. It takes a lot of time and resources, but it's sometimes better than hitting a major objective head-on with a direct invasion. With AKA and APA, my heavy equipment can join they fray. Without them, well, sorry, no artillery, tanks, etc.

I agree that the land model is quite rough, but for a strategic game, I think it works out well enough. Would I like it to be better? Absolutely. But, I know the chances are that are between slim and none, and strongly leaning toward none.

Actually thinking about this...would Cherbourg be considered the immediate "base" objective of the Normandy landings?

[Bullwinkle58]

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 don't play PBEM, but I agree with you here. I dislike the idea of HRs in general, but this one seems, well, incredibly wimpy.

If your opponent is willing to accept the benefit of avoiding CD and accepts the detriment of time and fatigue to land over there and march over here, that's his call. If you see him doing that, stop him. That's what the navy is for, and the flyboys. If you see him doing it (you are air searching, right?) his movement delay gives you time to move forces by land or air transport, to juice fort building, to click up supply, and to send in more planes. That's war. Restricting landings to base hexes and dots removes strategic mobility from the attackers' toolbag, and by that I mean the allies' toolbag. The US spent billions developing and building assets to allow attacks into unimproved beachheads and to supply the troops there. They did it many, many times. Yes, there are places with cliffs and the like where there is no beach. But in the PTO they are few. Jungle right up to the sand was not a problem.

CD installations were built to protect industry and housing from direct attack. No CD network in history ever stopped a determined invader. Not Hitler's Atlantic Wall, not the Maginot Line (work with me here), not the USA's coastal network pre-Civil War. If the other guy wants to come ashore and is serious enough about it, he can. It's up to the defender to stop him at sea, or not to let him off the beach.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: treespider
Actually thinking about this...would Cherbourg be considered the immediate "base" objective of the Normandy landings?

No Cherbourg was a campaign objective. There were 5 or 6 smaller ports that were the D-day objectives.

Jim