Matrix Games Forums

My PBEM opponent and I are wrapping up the Guadalcanal scenario and will be starting the Grand Campaign soon (and to all those who advised me at the outset on this game, yes, I got pimp-slapped). One of our considerations is the house rules we will play by. My question is this: almost all of the AARs I've read have a house rule that amphibious landings can only occur at bases or dot-hexes. We are curious why so many experienced players adopt this house rule. Does it aid in the balance of play, help the offense defense, Allies or Japanaese? All the world wonders!

Well, I've not played a game using this house rule.  I can understand why some would justify it by saying that every hex on the map is not suitable for an amphibious landing and it's too much of a burden on the defender to guard every coastal hex.  I personally see nothing wrong with it.  If you land in the countryside, good luck getting enough supply ashore to keep your troops in beans and bullets.  It requires that much more effort, especially in shipping, to make the landing successful.  Just my opinion.  [:)]

It's a holdover from WITP, where we didn't have the unloading restrictions that are incorporated into AE.

IIRC there's no code for defensive fire against amphib landings in non-base hexes.

I use it because there are enough bases to defend as it is. If we had to defend non-base hexes from invasions, there'd be no way to be able to do it.

ORIGINAL: USS America
... I personally see nothing wrong with it.  If you land in the countryside, good luck getting enough supply ashore to keep your troops in beans and bullets.  It requires that much more effort, especially in shipping, to make the landing successful.  Just my opinion.  [:)]

My opinion too!

Regards,
Feltan

ORIGINAL: Feltan

ORIGINAL: USS America
... I personally see nothing wrong with it.  If you land in the countryside, good luck getting enough supply ashore to keep your troops in beans and bullets.  It requires that much more effort, especially in shipping, to make the landing successful.  Just my opinion.  [:)]

My opinion too!

Regards,
Feltan

There was also a thread where several developers posted - they considered the issue during AE development and landings at non-base/dot hexes are fine. The code handles it. And yes, there are consequences. For example, you can prep only for bases, so landings elsewhere result in a lot more losses during landing. There are others (as pointed out above).

Because I said so !

That's what my dad always said.

ORIGINAL: stuman

Because I said so !

That's what my dad always said.

Now don't you be throwing your toys around there young Stu! [:D]

ORIGINAL: pws1225

My PBEM opponent and I are wrapping up the Guadalcanal scenario and will be starting the Grand Campaign soon (and to all those who advised me at the outset on this game, yes, I got pimp-slapped). One of our considerations is the house rules we will play by. My question is this: almost all of the AARs I've read have a house rule that amphibious landings can only occur at bases or dot-hexes. We are curious why so many experienced players adopt this house rule. Does it aid in the balance of play, help the offense defense, Allies or Japanaese? All the world wonders!

When I've played, the rule has always been no landings in non-base (at least the dot) hexes.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: pws1225

My PBEM opponent and I are wrapping up the Guadalcanal scenario and will be starting the Grand Campaign soon (and to all those who advised me at the outset on this game, yes, I got pimp-slapped). One of our considerations is the house rules we will play by. My question is this: almost all of the AARs I've read have a house rule that amphibious landings can only occur at bases or dot-hexes. We are curious why so many experienced players adopt this house rule. Does it aid in the balance of play, help the offense defense, Allies or Japanaese? All the world wonders!

When I've played, the rule has always been no landings in non-base (at least the dot) hexes.

But, why Shark? Do you and your opponent(s) have a reason for using this HR?

ORIGINAL: VSWG

IIRC there's no code for defensive fire against amphib landings in non-base hexes.

Was this addressed in AE? Anyone know?

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: VSWG

IIRC there's no code for defensive fire against amphib landings in non-base hexes.

Was this addressed in AE? Anyone know?

I don't know if there is defensive fire per se, but the developers were completely clear that they consider the code to handle non-base invasions. There is ample downside for the invading player. As far as defensive fire itself, the hexes are fairly large - how many large units would it take to make defenses that would cover the entire coastline?

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: pws1225

My PBEM opponent and I are wrapping up the Guadalcanal scenario and will be starting the Grand Campaign soon (and to all those who advised me at the outset on this game, yes, I got pimp-slapped). One of our considerations is the house rules we will play by. My question is this: almost all of the AARs I've read have a house rule that amphibious landings can only occur at bases or dot-hexes. We are curious why so many experienced players adopt this house rule. Does it aid in the balance of play, help the offense defense, Allies or Japanaese? All the world wonders!

When I've played, the rule has always been no landings in non-base (at least the dot) hexes.

But, why Shark? Do you and your opponent(s) have a reason for using this HR?

Couple of reasons. 1. We usually prefer to actually be able to defend/attack.

2. The more important...during WWII, you almost needed a pier to unload most of your equipment and supplies, especially early in the war. Unlike today were you can use VertRep, and have Helo's and LCACs for putting the troops ashore, when WWII started there were very few ships capable of true over the beach unloading...very little in the way of even RO-RO capability. Modern amphibious assaults are the results of experience gained over the 4 years of WWII.

And it just makes for a more interesting game when there is some risk involved with your landings.

Shark7,

Mr. Killer Fish -- I understand your point. However, this is one of those situations that may be self-limiting. I've never played with the HR that limits invasions to bases or dot hexes; however, after thinking about it, I don't think I've ever done an invasion at anything but a base or dot hex. The downside of such an operation has always prevented a decision to do so.

I did witness an opponent do this in New Guinea, near Port Moresby. It was a disaster for him. Strangled by lack of supply, when his trrops finally marched overland to thier objective they were (easily) repulsed and languished in the jungle; a training target for new Allied bomber squadrons.

For me, and perhaps me alone, a HR like this is similar to one saying "No Allied carrier strikes on Port Arthur in 1942." OK. If you really feal that strongly on the issue I could go with such an HR. Not because it makes sense to me, but because I probably wouldn't consider it anyway.

Regards,
Feltan

I may not be an old pro at this, but I have to disagree w/Shark 7. The idea is not to defend everything. It is and was an impossiblilty.

The goals were/are to take the ports, almost always land to the side and attack. Sometimes the landings were close to the ports, sometimes not.

Dieppe proved the cost of of a direct amphimbious assualt on a port.

In my PBEMs not using this house rule has not skewed the game so far.

And as mentioned so far, there are lots of risks not directly attacking a base or dot hex.

Spartan3056

The other thing to watch out for is that even a token force can cut off a retreat path. So if a couple of squads are unloaded across the retreat path for some forces, it has an effect far greater than a couple squads should have. Of course, there are other HRs or understandings one might have to avoid stuff like this.

ORIGINAL: erstad

The other thing to watch out for is that even a token force can cut off a retreat path. So if a couple of squads are unloaded across the retreat path for some forces, it has an effect far greater than a couple squads should have. Of course, there are other HRs or understandings one might have to avoid stuff like this.

Yup, nothing to do with where to land, just a "don't be gamey" agreement.

ORIGINAL: erstad

The other thing to watch out for is that even a token force can cut off a retreat path. So if a couple of squads are unloaded across the retreat path for some forces, it has an effect far greater than a couple squads should have. Of course, there are other HRs or understandings one might have to avoid stuff like this.

This is probably the more common and logical reason.

And as others have pointed out, landing in a jungle hex = almost certain defeat of your invasion.

Capturing the ports was the one most important thing to ensure the success of an amphibious operation.

Another very, very important reason for requiring to land in base hexes in the game...many of the Pacific Islands (most in fact) had limited beaches or approaches that would allow for an amphibious assault...and this was usually right into the anchorage. Atolls are surrounded by corals, which makes approach trecherous, while many other islands will present with cliff facings or extremely thick jungle that does not allow for effective amphibious landings.

So as a practical matter, you landed where you could.

Just for an example, go look at a map or satellite photo of Tarawa and you can note the coral reef that surrounds the island chain. Very limited shipping channels or potential landing sites there.

Folks, as the opponent of the chap who started this tread, I don't agree with the house rule but I do agree that if abused this HR could be "gamey" to say the least (something that is very obvious in other land warfare games). Certainly landings were done in less than ideal places and one certainly didn't have to have piers or other equipments/land features to conduct a landing (witness Guadalcanal, no pier there!). So I don't think it wrong to land in areas other than dots. Think about it, a hex is 40 miles across, and taking into consideration the lack of straight lines on the waterfront, that would translate into about 50+ miles of waterfront property, and it would be rare indeed to find that length of coastline where NO landing could take place (although I'm sure there are a few spots around the globe!). I think the inherit risks of landing over the beach are enough to warrant second thoughts about this tactic (which are pointed out above very vividly). However, one person did point out that a landing of a few squads WOULD cut off retreat, which I do find gamey, thus I would think a rule would be only serious landings on a beach hex should be considered legal, NOT landings of a few troops to cut off retreat, etc. That would expand the options for all players AND allow someone who wants to take risks to "go" for it. And lets face it, NO army can defend a long coastline no matter how big or bad (just ask Rommel, and he knew what he was doing!). Hal